this case the trial court the circuit court found jurisdiction but predicated its finding a jurisdiction and specific jurisdiction not general jurisdiction which means that there are  the traditional minimum contacts and substantial fair play of substantial justice but also in in the context of the civic jurist what specific jurisdiction plaintiffs were required to prove a third prong namely that they're playing a rose from the purported minimum contacts and i want to start with that last draw your rising from a related two prong whether the claims in this case arise from the purported minimum contact it is of course m g m distributions position that there were no minimum con no contacts low a minimum contest illinois but in terms of focusing upon what the claim arises from the relates to the court really need look no further than the second amended complaint that was filed by the plaintiffs which is summarized in our opening brief on page  what it says fourth is what the claim is all about plainness is that m g m distribution didn't do a great job distributing the film titled madison but didn't do so because it reportedly rejected madison's media plan to remove the m g m logo an artwork from the film or direct madison to do so but did it at theaters at the last minute didn't took place in only one place one place now is california where both the decisions were made by m g m distribution and words distribution activities take place it taps into a network of third party theater the call that on theaters around the country and those sales of the of the rights to exhibit the picture take place from and g m distributions offices in california and if asked under to support the marketing effort and the marketing plan that was madison's plan then and g m distribution would do so and did do so by interfacing with at madison's of entertainment both located in california and as a result whether there are any contacts or minimum contacts with illinois a claim in this case that alleged breach in this case arouses not from those contacts but from decisions made in california and distribution activities conducted in california and therefore the circuit court erred when it either disregard disregarded or gave short shrift to the a rising from or related to wrong and that's why the case ought to be reversed the only other point i would make a map to killer issue is that while the second amended complaint frames the issue there isn't one mention not one mention of the state of illinois in the cla non and i would i would say your honor that in fact the third parties here are neither agents nor independent contractors in the case of theater owner earth they are customers they are at arm's length with m g m distribution m g m distribution sales force in california contacts third party customers who own theaters for example amc has theaters is as i'm sure you know in in chicago and c is located in kansas city so the sales force in california contacts the the the buyer's representative the customer representatives in kansas city and makes a set and the same thing is true on marketing and advertising that if madison asks that its media plan be implemented and executed by m g m distribution m g m distribution's responsibilities was to meet with madison's representatives in california and then to contact third party vendors who run media by companies who would then go and buy media and place it so our position is that it's not either an agent or an independent contractor to actually customers and vendors that we were dealing with but in no way were they agents and of course that's an important distinction as you know because the acts of independent contractors are not charged to the party in the context of jurisdiction district so found in davis for the circuit court again air because in a couple of ways actually first it disregarded or gave such short shrift to critical elements of the minimum contacts tast who initiated the transaction between paradise and m g m distribution that isn't red jurisdiction is predicated on in this case that is a contract between two delaware companies of both headquartered in california the agreement was negotiated and formed entirely in that film distributed in fifteen states including a one on the the first agreement is just an overall six picture deal by which paradise had the right to put six pictures of its choosing no one knew at the time what they would be to m g m distribution to distribute and in fact there were other pictures and there were complaints about the way in which m g m just distributed those pictures and the lawsuits about those two two of those other films those lawsuits that not surprisingly were in california this one was filed in illinois because presumably plaintiffs had some strategic reason for doing so at the claim was was that madison ritually the claim was that madison was in the one company it turns out after the evidence you're hearing there was no evidence of that and quite the contrary the operating for agreement for madison establishes that it's not an illinois argot all it's a california l l c with its principal place of business in malibu california b investors in the company reside in illinois so we're in this bizarre situation where the plaintiff is asking this orphan asked the circuit court in essence to disregard its own corporate formalities to treat court here to disregard its own corporate formalities in order to gain a live band so it's that second agreement where where madison there is an agreement between madison and jim distribution which is just a vehicle by which madison took over the obligations of paradise in connection with the one film entitled mess but it madison is not an illinois plant that paradise initiated and the second agreement was negotiated with in california in fact madison's lawyer in california formed the company as a california l l c for a very specific reason know i was in was in contact with the chairman who is a resident he's an investor in a resident of the state of illinois and that's why i say this is a case where the plaintiff wants the court to disregard its own corporate formalities and treat it where the investors intent of the parties as to what the transaction was all about and so the circuit court then focuses only on place of performance but errors again because the circuit court finds that performance is where the product end it is in essence a stream of commerce decision that says if you agree to nationwide distribution to try and get the widgets here the widget as a fill in to all fifty jurisdictions or here into fifteen jurisdictions at madison's request that there must be performance in all of those states but that's not what the evidence was the evidence was that the performance takes place by the sales force acting in california and making its decisions in california and i rollup and why when contract was negotiated and formed outside of illinois well in that case you had an illinois point of whereas here you have a california plate in that case you what i call an illinois centric contract the whole purpose of the contract was to entitle to enable the plaintiffs to win a bid with the city of chicago and perform services in chicago you have to contrast that here with nationwide distribution agreement where the distribution activities take place entirely in the state of california and so when one looks at the quality and nature of the contacts with the various jurisdictions there was no  will none whatsoever here or other than the widget the film made its way into the state of illinois and that alone without initiation goshi ation formation contrary choice of bok provision simply cannot support jurisdiction one last point about yea cox's this bad the arising from a relating to prong was obvious in that case and the decision really notes that because it was on one of the say the equipment was delivered to illinois and the claim arose from the defective equipment you know on whereas here as i said the claimed arising from relating to if one looks at the second american play were decisions made entirely california such as whether or not to enable madison to have the m g m well go an artwork on the film and whether or not to process reorders of the maker with respect to the distribution decisions and the contract between madison and g m distribution and that is carla mari madison europe at auctions not of international or global distribution who insisted on that direct contractual relationship between the parties they say the marriage is going to come from madison rather than from here or vice we probably direct contractual relationship substantial and action alone so you're redline because there's been evidence showing that all the decisions related to the agreement between these two parties including the thank you you're on limit dress only two point three points first i thought one of the most telling things about councils argument was in response to the question what are the substantial connections between m g m distribution  illinois and the response that you heard was that plaintiff's decisions were made in illinois by most it's from mark and every case in the due process area the system really sad that it is not the plaintiffs contact with jurisdiction it is the defendant's contacts with the jurisdictions and in that regard i simply want to reiterate the evidence even about the point that not only were they not registered to transact business in the why they had for offices in california their post production facilities were in california their marketing representatives were in california and the president who was also the director of the film was in california and those were the folks who my client interface with on a the supposed disproportionate distribution in illinois i really it's a bit of a misnomer because this was what was known as a limited release or a platform release this if successful if the film played well it would have been distributed all throughout the country and it would have been disproportionate all sceptically the the initial platform release that was weighted more heavily toward the midwest and and illinois well decided country the sales force is in california and it sells to customers around the country to try and get them to buy the product to exhibit where madison wanted it exhibit it opened it but the fact that it was ma decision distributed on isn't really relevant or is the question whether once medicine has directed the to be done in illinois you're doing it now online and you're doing it you're just proportionally i mean you know i'm kind of you know i kind of network of customers around the country to try and get them to buy the product get it into the stream of commerce in the various jurisdictions and here it in certainly included according to madison disproportionally at their request was to be distributed in illinois but while we were doing in addition to making decisions and i keep focusing on the making of decisions because of the you know rising from are related to prong and what their claim is about their claim is widgets and we sell them from california and if we have a customer that comes to us and says ok we're entering into a agreement we want you to sell a lot of widgets in fifteen different states is that there were fifteen different states in the initial release and clearing in illinois that putting things in the stream of commerce and getting your widgets in various first fictions is not performance in that jurisdiction and does not give rise to jurisdiction in breach of contract case and that's what we have here