dismissing my client's entire case strictly on form one convenience grounds it's our position that judge would abused her discretion in this case because essentially she made a finding that  the form was not convenient based soley on the citation of one case by a b the sentence well no i think that's an unfair characterization of her opinion she notes that the center of gravity of this case is on the island of st kitts that's where the alleged activities took place she does look at a decision of the eastern caribbean supreme court which i would know is a body  that uses english common law and successor to the judicial committee of the privy council which existed until two thousand and three in st kitts it's basically an english basically whole system and she looks at this one particular opinion  first well i think really to some degree yes i agree the judge can do her research but i think she just jumped the gun a little bit because the piper case which i consider to be the foremost formidable authority in these ca says that the first step in the district court's analysis is you have to determine whether the alternative proposal form is even viable well but look i mean i know hyper well and in that particular case of course the pla adequate for a they they are the courts are open for business to handle this kind of case they maybe not the same way that a us court wouldn't but piper shows that's ok maybe we have strict liability here maybe they have to replace liability in scotland whatever you know i don't see the differences being any bigger than the differences in piper well first of all judge my my thought is this the cases that were cited were not in my view modern  cases two thousand and eleven two thousand and thirteen and we don't know if the same system the same laws and same rules the same processes were in effect when my client's case was dismissed as they were in those cases acknowledges that these chords do not even acknowledge akubra cause of action for title mine which is how this case was well originally filed there are a lot of problems with doing that but i don't even want to get there because this is farm non convenience and again hyper establishes that if you go to another jurisdiction the choice of law rules of that jurisdiction may be different the substantive law that those choice of law rules settles on may be different but that alone is not enough to defeat a farm on convenience motion let me hear what happened in the united states nothing this got you know the relationship between mr zorra and ferrari is one that takes place exclusively in st kitts there it's being investigated by the veterinary school there the ross school there what are the links to the united states the main link is that the defense has their corporate headquarters right here in downers grove and i don't think that it's a path parent company you've got complications there too you have piercing the corporate veil why is the parent company responsible responsible for the actions of the subsidiary that question comes up a lot in international my convenience understood judge but again i that's why i believe that the case that i cited at the end nothing happened other than the parent company sitting there in downers grove all of the events whether it's this relationship and throwing people out of apartments and violent complaints it all happens in sync kids that's where the witnesses are going to be agreed and in the king case all the sexual abuse occurred in south africa yet the michigan this record retain jurisdiction in their venue no they have based on the fact that the ultimate responsibility goes to the university and the same way here that the old responsibility goes to the corporate entity that's in downers gray don't know that that follows because the difference between the south african case is that it was that entity itself that had some sort of study abroad thing or something and forget exactly the details but here it's the ross university school of veterinary medicine which is a separately organized business entity on st kitts which in turn through a chain of corporate ownership does i agree with you get you up get you over to downer scrope but it's not that the downers grove entity is the veterinary school it's not and there are cases from the supreme court about deciding you know how you move up and down the corporate test which i don't even think we should get there because i do not believe that the record that was set forth which contained no affidavits no declaration no information of any kind about what is or is not and an admission that's been discussed in the two previous cases whole i'm interpreting your honour's question then is argued by my opponent that passage that was in one of many court briefs that service stronger than what you're saying today a little stronger but not much i mean i'm might be i think it might be could be you mean many different things waivers have to be clear and unequivocal i don't think that the judge would certainly did not quote any statement made by trial counsel that he conceded that saying kids was appropriate judge would in her so let me just note that remember our bodum case i mean there is no requirement for foreign law that there be expert witnesses that there be presentations forty four point one which i'm looking at just says into terminating foreign law the court may consider any relevant material or source including testimony whether or not submitted by a party or admissible under the federal rules of evidence which means as far as i interpreted this court would be fully entitled to go look at the rules in the eastern caribbean and see what it looks like i suppose i mean i don't know what you could do that hasn't been done already to show that it's not in two thousand and seventeen or at the time this lawsuit was filed and adequate for a time i really think would be an uphill battle well i guess i read the paper cases saying that burden is on the movement and while the judge certainly had her option to do independent factual information of why the judge felt that same kids wasn't appropriate form i also would like to say with respect to the convenience factor again i cannot reconcile the fact that the in two thousand and nine filed a case in the northern district asserting illinois state law claims against the barbadoes the friend and why that the northern district was a convenient form for that but not for this has raised is very specifically whether st kitts is an adequate forum or not whether the pro publica private interest factors balance out or whether it's more convenient or or anything like that it's the first step in the analysis which is whether st kitts is a place that well here is claim and you know our our first point on that is that plaintiff did not challenge the adequacy of the forum in the district court he spent five pages arguing about our grounds but he spent half a sentence talking about adequacy and he said what we've already heard which is he just said it might be adequate for some but not all claims and then moves on into the second part of the analysis well fair hearing there which you can get some remedy for the wrong and and respectfully and we think that the case we cited from the high court of justice and st kitts and nevis shows that beyond a shadow of a doubt that she pr as a medical student suing for getting kicked out of medical school the same exact thing that's going on here she wants forty three thousand dollars and in u s currency she gets reinstated and she gets a record clear it's not just some remedy it's the same remedy that the point of the seeking here and i don't it's not unusual for st kitts to have a number of professional schools as indeed it's one of the things they they do in that business yeah and and i don't think it's a requirement that the defendant produce a case from the last twenty four hours in order to show that the court system is still there still functioning at as it has for a long time i will confess to having looked at their website earlier this week and they do apparently still seem to be there i have as well i have a motion to dismiss due on monday for the same client the the issue's been waived as our purpose is our position not it's not just that the plaintiff has conceded that it that it is an adequate forum it's that the district court especially in a case like this where it has substantial discretion deserves an opportunity to be told we challenge this form isn't adequate not to be told in a few words that it might be the district court also had in front of it although for other reasons and other arguments we made that didn't need to be addressed was the our ship case from the u s district court for the district in new jersey which was the same same situation same defendants  former veterinary students who was expelled from school and the district in new jersey granted a motion to dismiss and form that convenience grounds sending the case to st kitts in the third circuit affirmed that now in a case where the question is whether the district court abused its discretion or in other words did something that no reasonable judge would have done it seems important that the district of new jersey and the third circuit have done the exact same thing in the exact same circumstances seems to me that that suggests that it was not  rational it was certainly within the realm of reason to say that a case could be sent to st kitts and heard there quite adequately now sometimes when there are farm one convenience dismissals and this actually happened the bhopal litigation  there's a condition that the parties who are in the the us forum not raise an objection to personal jurisdiction or two statutes of limitations i take it there were no stipulations like that here for dry there were no stipulations like that with the district court noted was specifically with respect to ross university's school of veterinary medicine that because they're at home in st kitts they can rot or certainly  and while driving and driving medical did not specifically say that they would accept service the court pointed out that it they just adopted the same arguments and positions that ross took in assumed that that meant that they would accept service and be amenable to suit in st kitts i point out that in our shoot where the district court required a little bit more and actually was the one that raised the issue an issue in that case of right and right medical both stipulated that they would accept service process in st kitts and that has to be a decision here that's their position on it and if the court doesn't have any further questions i really don't know that i have anything to add to my to respond two councils point to see the same case in their case there was a declaration submitted in support of the adequacy of the alternative form by quote unquote a legal professional and in that case the motion to dismiss based on for my convenience was the night in the r c case it was dismissed on form not convenience but amongst the items that was considered by the court in that case cases some document some evidentiary record of what is that the alternative form being appropriate and why here other than the partial case there is not and i do agree with  your honor's that the issue of statute of limitations could also be an issue now whether the st kitts form is appropriate whether or not counsel's viscusi clients are willing to accept service that doesn't mean they're waving their argument against the actual limitations the fences we don't know that we don't know what the statute of limitations are so for all those reasons i believe the case should be reversed and sent back to that this record all right and then if anybody has any question