corporation and a person specially appointed and that we think that the best way to read that is in that context it's in the context of the president the vice president a console or people who exercise daily managerial forty over that corporation and what they're saying is that even though they've applied at the lower court as applied to a subsidiary even though it does not have the same type of daily managerial authority over its parent council i appreciate your your argument on that but how do you deal was a general manager in the state and both ravelli of the court of appeal case and ravelli and bakersfield hasi and said that cause for was not in point when referring to the different language of four sixteen point and i think  the way you deal with it is and again yamaha did an excellent didn't display any particular enthusiasm for cost i said it could probably be revisited because for the very reason we state that that is not how you would normally view general manager's position to depart from the terms actually used in the section well then you deal with the issue of it i gather that you all of conceded that if your client had not been sure to or there would be no way to assure the ultimate public warehouse county in the state of california that correct i disagree i don't think that's something that was before the court and i don't think that is something that has been resolved there is behind this case behind this order there was a separate effort at alternative service and you know the court has not resolved that it was denied by move it in virginia that night in california right no that was that would be service through f three and that was something that was pending at the time when the court ruled on this and denied that further motion is moot and i don't think it's before the court because of that and that's something that has arisen as a result was premised all that when you're talking about should that play in our analysis of this case i don't think that it should play a role it is quite common for companies to present themselves i mean each of the subsidiaries are many of the subsidiary keep their own book but they present a consolidated financial statement because that's what matters t you know in the face of that you have so many other cases including time where they say a general manager means what you would expect it to mean that somebody with managerial control over the whole corporation can this means that and one thing i want to point out judge smith is that even though you have the liberal constructs of timing they say margaret was made exactly the time they said it's not liberal construction basically doesn't allow you to carry the terms in the statute and it is not substantial compliance to serve a distinct legal entity which is what was going on when you're trying to for a parent through a city one state that you see doing business in california itself is not doing business in california it does not have it's not doing business in the united states essentially rendered to the general manager term of four sixteen point one zero be a nobody as to companies that are not doing business in california sorry let me say it differently i have you as to companies that are not based in california i'm trying to think of when you'd ever have a general manager of a foreign corporation who's managing the way you're saying in that kind of situation seems like you're saying they have to do business here for ever to work and no no i don't i don't think that's right because i mean well if i understand your point but it would be directing the work i think that you could have to begin with or you know strong submission is that it has to be an actual there is potential where they would still not be doing business in california because it would be the local subsidiary that is the actual manager telling you know the parent in kuwait this is how you run the operation this is how you  and in addition i mean one thing to keep in mind is when you when you read the statute as a whole california courts do follow the those that are socialist maximum you have this list of natural persons who council let me just ask you before you set out one kind of tangential question and it was more out of curiosity why didn't your client assert lack of personal jurisdiction as defense here you know i m they're under four sixteen ten the term general manager requires service on an individual that's the head of the overall corporation in this case that corporation is clear off in kuwait the second rigid requirement they urge is that the california agent for service of process have some connection to the facts of the case and for that they cite to taint our position is that the california supreme court would reject both of those positions and the reason is because they conflate principles of personal jurisdiction with principles of substitute service of process you just point your honor i'd like to walk back some broad statements and in my brief suggesting that some of the case law also conflated those two issues i would state for the record that i believe it's only telling that reasoning is utterly unpersuasive your honor in that case the california appellate court confused the fact that there was no no personal jurisdiction in fact that under international hsu if you're trying to get specific personal jurisdiction you need some connection between the facts the defendant in the form state that's in the the the  what's necessary for service a process for substitute service a process the california supreme court since nineteen thirty in the wrong decision has always followed the princip that it took from new york case law the substitute service a process is valid if it's made upon an agent of sufficient character in rain to make it reasonably certain that the foreign corporation will receive notice in a key piece of that is whether that egypt whether it's a subsidiary or an individual provides a channel of continuous business to their parent it going to reasonably be communicated but this other is the channel of business which you're kind of lumping the two together but in the cases that are being discussed here it seems like in almost all of them there is some sort of product being sold by the parent through the sub or through the man you know the representative in the state some sort of business being conducted through and i'm not sure what you're saying the business being conducted through the sub is that's equivalent to any of those other cases can you explain that part of this particular one or do you talk  here including defense with just us and your honor i think a key distinction here is that the jury the personal jurisdiction in this case is under the false claims act that does not require that there be some connection between the forum and the facts it only requires that the the the defendant company be transacting business in the form form state you hear opposing counsel said it's uncontested that p w c is not doing business in california it sounds like you're contesting that we can we can test that we believe that that you don't need to come anywhere near that that higher burden for alter ego in times for the agent that was served it wasn't even the distributor that sold the gun that exploded it was so of the world's largest integrated logistics provided with more than twenty thousand employees in operations in one hundred countries and the website confirms that gelati just six united states is the united states an arm of that enterprise and eight of discretion for standard you know and if we disagree with you about four one six point one zero would you persued two one one zero one one one zero zero that's doing business in the state so if we think you haven't shown enough to meet what we think is the definition of general manager under four one six would you want to have an opportunity on re manned to pursue twenty one ten there is your understanding that you've been served you need to respond and then of course you've got the argument of the person jurisdiction issue which i call the race of the posing council earlier which is an entirely separate issue that's that's a totally separate issue and consistently gotten right and focused on that communication aspect and his the relationship between the agent and the foreign companies such that they're there is evidence of a channel of company is sufficient to to dance that channel of communication can you can you think of any of the cases to california cases cited by your opponent  published or published where the general manager assured was anything other than an individual the the the cost per case  california supreme court in in cost per has been clear that the their general manager argument being equated to a person high up in the in the company  is not given currency when you're dealing with a foreign corporation that that language that that textual changes over over time ha been efforts by the california legislature to impose some sort of rigid requirement i'm on how this service of process is made but the california supreme court has always gone back to that principle what's the character focus here is to trying to move service through for six to get you know the questions by my colleagues not we thank you very much for your argument and opposing counsel has but whether it was a general manager in the state right and it said it would be because they are because they were involved in cert selling the very firearms that were at issue in that case they would have open lines of communication it would because of the communicating here on the other hand if you look at even primarily in the middle east so again this is a this is an awful lot like time where you have a company that does civilian logistics and that's what you know i go to a logistics is says it is said to do and whether or not they would be the person to communicate to say hey you remember that government contract you sign with the government for providing services in the middle east it's a very different thing and i mean if you are going to impose on a company a multinational corporation the burden of being served through all of it subsidiaries it is a very daunting prospect how to manage litigation and especially when you consider that the subsidiaries it if you hear agility internationally just with the fist here subsidiary so there are four parents above it who supposedly could be served under th someone's going to receive the thing when they are in the civilian leaders because business and they're going to look at a complaint involving you know something that happened half of all the way it's not clear that there was there any way that service could have been affected for this i think that that's not before the court there are other methods there are still pending that you know they have for after three you know there is it still has not been litigated in this case whether hagstrom is actually would be a possibility but you know all this before the court now is whether there's general management setting up lies to subsidiaries and for the reasons that we displayed in our brief and just hard to figure out exactly what's going on here because it seems like maybe it's a problem if it can't be served anywhere if you're saying well there are these other ways th if one of those other ways is going to work then i'm not sure why so much effort is being got it got him into fighting this one way because it's only going to happen land if you give this company would be great to establish a proposition you cannot serve two subsidiary when you have all of these when there are that you got noticed and what's the problem with that actual notice has never been the point of service you have to because the idea is that in the run of cases you want to have a mechanism in place the people who actually gets or get actual get this and so what we are trying to establish as the as a multinational corporation is a method of service that will provide notice in the run of cases you know the fact that we got noticed in this one particular case through a centrally happenstance doesn't issues but in this case you clearly did appear right away but again actual notice as never been the case it was you know untangling a base that there was some indications that they didn't dispute that they had actual notice even though they defaulted there because after all you know what a company to do when it gets a notice that doesn't look like it has anything to do with it there's under no obligation to pass it up the chain essentially this happened through what happened stance just because we anyone who's worked in the justice department knows that you might get something for your for the wrong branch and it goes into a black hole that's never heard some of them and i think the same thing can happen when you're talking about a multinational corporation with five hundred fifty offices and one hundred twenty s and to recess for the day