when my client who was employed by united excel was was denied compensation he late she earned on a commission basis based on some work he was doing for his review what's important about the facts of this case and we can go through all the language that this court other courts of have have written cases about fairness and international should all the all the cases that are fall that what's different about this case what's important about this case is that the basis for the claim made by my client was his rights under chapter one forty one forty nine and those rights which in collect attorney's fees and also to have multiple images awarded that was the basis for this claim and the facts are very important in considering whether the contacts that this that my client was a business development consultant in the design build space for health care facilities he previously had developed an expertise and a large client base or contact base while use he was the vice president of northeast hospital sales for another company united x l the defendant in this case came to massachusetts solicited him to be their new employee to do just what he did at the other company and to develop business in the northeast that they didn't have where they were doing any business at all or own very little business they came to massachusetts because they wanted him this is not a case in which it was just an incidental contact or for tourists contact with massachusetts as has been suggested in the in the breeze blowing in the breeze before this course they came to massachusetts but this person and they asked him to work for them to help grow their business here or in boston massachusetts new england and all over the country what's important about that action by united x l is that by coming into massachusetts offering him a compensation plan essentially an employment agreement that did not have a jurisdictional a component to it it didn't say this good this agreement will be governed by the laws of kansas or or any other place is just  the says if you are able to secure a certain work for us you'll be entitled to a commission it's our position that that contract is imbued with the protections of chapter one forty nine and those protections say that if you are not paid compensation that you have earned you have a right to bring a claim with a one forty to one forty nine this case is different than the cases many of the cases cited both by by by my client and by united excel in that we're talking about employment situation where some were foreign a corporation comes into massachusetts hire somebody here in massachusetts and encourages them to solicit business in massachusetts it does not your honor it just for the record his initial compensation plan had a salary component plus a commission component is his his change in status two years in became a commission only position the reasons for that the economy was was was in a in maybe as bad a position of it as it had ever been since the one nine hundred thirty s money was tight and he went to this commission based compensation plan but the analysis is not different as to the rights he joyce under the massachusetts wage statute or the the obligations that the employer has to pay him for wages that he has earned so the commission piece of it is not relevant  with the form state in order to determine whether it's fair for him to be sued here but they have come here and they have employed him and they've authorized him to stay in massachusetts to work for massachusetts and therefore they've that employer becomes is our position subject to the laws the employment laws of massachusetts and so that the middle contacts have to be evaluated in the context of the claim itself and i think that's what distinguishes this case from the cases that are cited by designed to protect their evidence that go for the commission portion of the agreement the second one when it became commission only that they were retaining him to the commissions to grow commissions in the masses use its area yes there's evidence in the record that that the affidavit of mr costarred which was submitted in opposition to the motion to dismiss states that he was directed by his supervisors at united excel to try to develop business in nasa two sets and in fact with respect to the commission when they react just for the commission only i know there is that evidence w respect to when they first retain him to be an employee but then the economy goes down and he changes the nature of the employer relationship he's now a commission only employee and what i'm wondering is with respect to that second one was there any evidence that the reason they wanted to retain him was to get commissions in massachusetts in particular or were they just looking for commissions from anywhere there's no evidence that it was just for massachusetts  changed when the compensation plan changed his his job responsibilities and his obligations to united xcel didn't change from the beginning to the end he was charged with trying to generate business here in massachusetts and in other places based on the contacts that he had originally developed while he worked for the previous employer and also the context he had maintained since that time so i'm out of time but i just would ask the court to focus on the fact massachusetts and say we're going to do business in massachusetts that we're going to open a general contracting sales office and i file with the secretary of state statement registration to do business in the business is described as a general parking sales office and then to reach out to a massachusetts resident and arrange to set up a room in his house as an office outfitting him with the electronic equipment you need to run the sales office and they pay him to run the general contracting sales office and massachusetts that that that that sounds to me like a lot of contacts with massachusetts that directly relate to the employee who's running the massachusetts focus attention in the northeast he doesn't say that he was directed by anyone to develop business for you he directly in massachusetts and in fact you noted excels affidavit indicates that he was directed to develop visit business nationally and that his efforts in massachusetts were very insignificant compared to his efforts elsewhere and what yes it does but here's the problem we have to look at whether this particular case contrary what attorney claim arises from their contacts and the problem is that the way to claim that is alleged is that the decision was not to go forward on a california project because into frustrate the purpose of that was going to be all that was all going to be done in california but not to my argument to the court is that it is not and i have to say that i need to correct your honor to indicate that in this record he was not open he didn't open a massachusetts sales office he he merely made telephone calls and e mails nationally for united excel f open the massachusetts sales office your client told us secretary of state that they were open about issues there was no massachusetts office and that's in the record what the record also indicates is united excel they registered to do business because they agreed to employ hired him as their employee in massachusetts knowing he's about to use not like a passive purchaser is not somebody just bought online you know a pack of cards or something this is a ongoing intended to be ongoing services contract for personal services with the person they know is in massachusetts and they is hardly news to them they not only file they went you know significant they hired her actors in massachusetts no physical contacts just lots of phone calls the claim there was that they won successful the never consummated the deal that led to sue we said that due process concluded that there that you've got a situation with the kansas corporation that has no contacts with massachusetts outside of mr coo sart but that's that's the that's the point i don't believe that it is because i don't believe the way jack claim arises from those contacts but if you were right then a company in gone could hire all of its contracting sales force in fifty states in the united states and they would then go call on countries out side united states and we would have concluded that no jurisdiction in any state in the country under your analysis of the it seems to me that the better   i think again because it depends you have to look at that through the prism of what the claim is and this claim as a way jack may relate solely to this corporation's decision not to pay him which was done in kansas and that's why it doesn't relate he it depends on what to claim this through they've made that decision and so they make a decision in chicago not to pay the employees in california then then they can maybe well here's the deal whether they can pursue the claim in california obviously would relate i would say they can't depends on the context that i b m has the business that they're doing here in massachusetts i b m is a very different company than united excel that's based in kansas that has no business here in massachusetts none whatsoever so i it's a it's a very different analysis your honor to say i b m huge corporate entity versus this particular kansas corker it's interesting about what the claim what is significant about this claim that makes you think it's connected the work he did in massachusetts because yes of course because this claim is about a california contract that never went forward and the decision what is alleged here is you see did not go forward with the contract because they didn't want to pay him the commission what's in the record is that's not what happened we it was a commercially i'm viable contract because the project was very low a low dollar amount compared to other projects they had to pay in this commission and the owner of his engagement with your company which would take it back to being connected to massachusetts no no because it's really just about are they live under the methods no other claim here he just claims you were acquired to pay me under the massachusetts wage act because that's is could you tell me about that corporation because that's what the difference is one of those contacts my client i would tell you the same case no because it doesn't give rise to they don't have sufficient contacts here they kids rise to that point that's my just two quick points no argument by counsel which is made quite clear in the briefs and which has been argued here today is that everything the coast guard did was of his own accord as if he was given part of a watch and that he was you see who care less what he did or where he went i think that is not not an argument that is credible based on what this corporation decided to do when it hired costarred they came here and they gave him some direction yes he was an expert in his field and they asked him to employ that expertise in massachusetts and everywhere else in the country and he did it did he have some discretion on where he could go certainly he was a he was a professional he's good at it but they told him to come here they want to expand their business here that isn't that isn't the record so all that he did wasn't of his own accord it was for the understand the general jurisdiction point it doesn't seem if one were not convinced that the general jurisdiction point carried over to the commission relationship that followed on  particular point that they hired him to do business the messages isn't particularly powerful with respect to a claim about business he did in california understood just on the specific jurisdiction point with respect to what he did in california with that was my second point that i think that and it also goes to the point that just cut out of was was was driving yet when you come to massachusetts and you hire somebody and your contract isn't specific as to what law governs it's our position or that the wall of massachusetts governs and when you violate a statute in massachusetts for payment of wages that is a violation that occurs in massachusetts and whether the whether it involved a california court contract or texas contract or any other contract is of less importance and i would argue maybe no importance to the to the rights that that employer united so owns to my client to pay him wages for work he did as the employee in massachusetts i don't think we're the contract may have been in this case california is important to that analysis it's a massachusetts contract as far as we're concerned to be interpreted by in accordance with the massachusetts wage at and so that under the specific jurisdiction analysis i think that's the way i would argue that