may please the court my name is billy gibbons in a represent the stephan family who are the plaintiffs in this case this court has held that to establish general jurisdiction when is disputed that a plaintiff need only t allegations in the in the complaint has to resolve factual conflicts in favor of the plaintiffs and it may rely on affidavits and in this in this case the plaintiffs in their complaint allege that jurisdiction was proper because of solicitation of business by the defendant in texas and when that was challenge the plaintiffs offered affidavits in which players who read more maria frank  described receiving affidavits and advertisements in the mail receiving phone calls and e mails soliciting her business on a regular basis she described billboards and other advertisements that she saw all overlook all over houston and even destroyed the specific locations of some of them she stated that she saw on a regular basis local commercials on local t v and radio and that she saw advertisements in the houston chronicle we also submitted an affidavit showing that the that the defendant would provide transportation from he residence from houston to the little bears you let casino through through a charter bus bus line yes not not through this corporation muscles not right on it that they didn't provide of themselves but they but they did advertise how is this any different from i'm trying to think of something i think how is this any different from these companies that advertise nationwide for you to travel to a resort in the caribbean is when they have specific jurisdiction in all fifty states and  supports is that it was targeted advertising to a a local area and there have been many cases that have held in even the casino context that that type of you are referring to those district court cases you cite your which the defendants have suggested has where the court has even you know limited more narrowly limited general jurisdiction the it if you look at that case carefully what it what it says is  that after a good year and anwar it has an expanded general jurisdiction beyond the traditional limitations but even in a good year they talk about that they say good here says that in that case the defendant did not solicit advertisements solicit business or advertise in north carolina which is where the plaintiffs were trying to establish general jurisdiction so i think the supreme court in good year has acknowledged that specific targeting specific targeted advertising is a valid basis for exercise a general juristic of any case since goodyear because i think it is recognized at that tightened up general jurisdiction give any case since goodyear district court circuit or otherwise that is found general jurisdiction based on advertising and the judge i don't have any where they have they have found it but but there's been but in the cases where  this this issue has been discussed post good year in specific advertising and marketing is still discussed as a factor and for example in head which is a casino case cited by the defendants and also in milsom that both of those cases are post goodyear and both of those cases say that that that advertising was not enough because it was the that was simply marketing to  particular you know i guess i would call it a high high worth gambler who would get you know personal phone calls personal e mails they would send a private jet to pick them up and the courts have said that that is not enough because it's not continuous and systematic and widespread but the discussion is still is still had in all of the cases that what you have to show is continuous and systematic contacts and i don't think that goodyear because because goodyear did did talk about specific targeting advertising so i don't think that what the supreme court in that case intended to do was to say you can't have general jurisdiction because by specific targeting targeted defendant put something in the stream of commerce that ended up in north carolina in the court said that that is not enough so i think that is how good your tightened up general jurisdiction it says and then dahmer a few years later says pretty clearly general jurisdiction is usually just going to be where you're incorporated where you have your principal place of business and then it acknowledges there are some extreme situations otherwise that might qualify but that's true it but and limitations and i think since international shoe there are these cases and all the cases that we've cited which are which are pretty good year have discussed solicitation in advertising targeted advertising is basis for general jurisdiction so  i think the question would be you know are those are those still considered traditional bases for general jurisdiction and i think because they are they are still discussed even in the cases where they have where the courts have said it's not targeted enough and it's not widespread enough to establish in marketing or advertising it's not widespread enough it's still a traditional basis and so i would i would say that because of that a local area that is targeted and that's what in those in those cases that have found it are exactly what we have here which is you know targeted on e mails television ads and  really there's even a little bit more here because i mean there was you know there was some evidence submitted where in the casino itself was saying we built this for texans we're trying to get texans to come here aren't you arguing specific  know you're going why don't you are getting specific jurisdiction because there are cases out there where we're someone online or through a travel agent registers for a vacation in the caribbean then they go down to the caribbean get her and it says well since you signed up in your home state at the events did arise out of those contacts with the that state i think judge that that's not my job but that was a hard argument for us to make it in that and so we did we did make that argument and we've always we've always relied on general jurisdiction and and relied on the cases that you know the i guess to the pretty good year cases that are out there that we we still believe are are good law that you correct me if i don't have your complaint memorized but there's a complaint reference or is there anything in the record we can use for this jurisdiction question reference that some of the advertising was done by the parent pinnacle as opposed to p and k judge i don't think there's anything in the record that can mean that i was to that's so what happened in the district court is you know we submitted that affidavit  that affidavit about who created those those ads on appeal they have said that we didn't establish that p and k was the one who you know engaged in the marking and maybe it was some other entity but we didn't have any discovery on that and i think that i mean if you look at going back to these other pacino cases i mean that we make allegations that the casino made that did the argument raise that well it was the parent company that that did that and not not p m k lake charles but there's nothing in the record to support that and there's no there's been a discovery for us to be able to get into that  contest it because i do think that that could lead into what is a another issue that was raised in dime which is the parent subsidiary relationship and but i don't think we're there yet your honor because i just don't think that there's you know without where i mean it was it was a little bit more broad ranging than just that justice issue i mean there was discussion about the case in general and the allegation ringback so there is a record of that and that is where there was some discussion about  the opposition to the motion to dismiss for for improper jurisdiction i mean this matters because under the louisiana law you you're out of time which yes case gets dismissed but i wonder it seems to me even under texas i mean if this were a texas case filed in texas court federal court they'll use texas choice of law which is the most significant relationship in the injury happened in louisiana the alleged negligence happened in louisiana seems to me you'd probably end up with the same result well i think that's a good question a complicated question i would say that i can give you a case that that i have found on that where that i think says that texas what apply texas law for the statute of limitations on i mean we didn't really brief that but it's cox versus mcdonald  try to bring a out of state defendant into a foreign jurisdiction you have to learn just station facts to bring that to light but sure that there's at least a politician case and i don't want you hearing situation that support imposing that should bases but we're going to the evidence we're looking at i just i mean it's in the complaint i think we have to accept the allegations is true so the question becomes giving them all the benefit of the doubt is all this advertising enough oh and the answer that and the cases hold that you knew that he had written it you you don't he might enjoy reminding himself of something that he once did or you are i mean i'm not going to say that wasn't one of the consideration and that was that there was a big discussion about how you can impute any contacts from one to another you have to prove nothing visually but one thing i know that in in the fact is that in that case and someone said they got calls like every month or something like the head case and i was unpublished when two of those cases in the eastern district of louisiana and when these an issue of texas were published either one was a magistrate opinion those are also border cases so when it came down to the nd prong of the traditional notions of fair pla substantial justice one what do i think it was an easier call once they figured out that the evidence showed that and i think the phone i actually got a news telephone listing in and in the yellow pages for example or something like that again that hasn't shown in this case but you know what one case happened on the bridge between mississippi and louisiana so you really couldn't say in that court found at the distances was was going to be an issue same thing when it comes to the issue the issue of taxes and lake charles and the album a shot of the facility those cases rock kind of linked together they kind of dotted the findings and want to support the other back in two this case doesn't have to or any or any district court decisions finding general jurisdiction in the casino cases or any of them applying good year i believe this court applied good year last year when they affirmed their head a defendant we are not alleging that p m k lake charles is subject to general intersection because of something that pinnacle did that is all something that is really kind of been created you know sort of after be you know it and it may be that if there's some jurisdictional discovery that it will be you know we may find out that there's something different there and there could be another issue but this is not this is not like the head case of the n g a case that on where we are we are alleging jurisdiction based on one incident based on you know something another instead did on the on the actual factual allegations i think that it would be difficult to say that the facts as a legend and let unless the law has changed to where advertising cannot be a basis for general jurisdiction anymore the factual allegations i believe are sufficient that we've made i mean we have we have alleged advertising we've been specific about what they have received where some of these ads have run the frequency of them and so i don't think i don't think it's fair to say that you know that those allegations  flawed or failed or or are insufficient i think that the real issue is as as as the court has has noted whether or not advertising jurisdiction is still valid post traditional elements of general jurisdiction and it goes through a discussion of some of those elements which would be no do they have employees is their headquarters there do they solicit or advertise there so i still think that that is  that advertising solicitation post good year is an element to to be relied on and to be considered when when determining whether a company has subjecting themselves to general jurisdiction in the case i know that the there are the casino cases our posts are pretty good year but they're exactly on point to this case as far as what the factual allegations were so i think that you know i think it i think it's a difficult argument to make say that the factual allegations are insufficient and i think that what the real what the question is is whether or not the post goodyear advertising is self sufficient and and we would say that it is because it's still a factor that's being considered and the cases that you know both parties have cited where where general jurisdiction has not been found to be established they still consider advertising and they have said this particular advertising is not sufficient targeting one person going into a state and trying to recruit one person is not sufficient but ok but it takes away the previous cases in the law that says when it is widespread continuous and systematic statement in your affidavit that this is targeted to the empire state of texas as opposed to this is targeted to the houston area or some more specific area than the empire state there in the af in the affidavit that attaches some of the articles and some of the internet publications that said article one hundred and thirty nine dollars of the record there's a there's a a a a pinnacle executive  there's executive saying we designed this casino for houston so i think that what what the what the evidence in the record supports is really more of a target to houston as opposed to texas in general and there's really not i  don't think there's much discussion or much evidence talking about texas in general other than the bus the bus schedules which are on there the website do have other other areas outside of houston i think there may be some help pas stops and things like that but but for the most part this is all this is targeted towards houston and that is you know our position judge is that this was the advertising the targeting was towards houston intentionally targeting houston because it's a very populous very own very big successful city that's close to the casino but your argument would mean that even so anywhere in texas they'd be subject to suit so in el paso someone who gets hurt of the casino in louisiana who's from louisiana could bring suit in opacity if they like that form that would be the consequence of your argument right well i think that that would be a if you're talking about jurisdiction yes yes it what i mean i think i think you may have another question there about you know whether or not venue is appropriate in that case but i think that that is that that result would be supported by wilson in gorman and and all  the other you know the previous cases that they don't it's never been narrowed to a i mean that they they look at targeting at a specific area that's an that's an important factor but i don't think it's ever it could ever really be limited or has been limited to a particular advertising alone would confer general jurisdiction here right i'm not sure if i could say that for any any circuit judge i know that i don't believe that the th circuit has ever had has held in advertising that an advertising case confer general jurisdiction