in the smoke from the slow smoke of the standard of review as conceded by the apple e's in this case is did over because the motions judge made no factual findings made no credibility determinations and decided this case of the very papers that were the support for this is a fresh look for your honour's and i would very much appreciate it or if you do that i want to touch on every argument i've made in my papers and i apologize for  that is what is the standard at which a motion to dismiss should be decided because that's the order that was interviewed on a motion to dismiss and what allegations are deemed sufficient to create a cause of and that's why i put his time the standard for a motion to dismiss you all know this very well the standard is that it's well pleaded you know if that was a problem they should have raised it before that they didn't argue and they don't they did argue before the trial red herring that event is a spend a lot of time this appeal is about what happens in a motion to dismiss where is alleged that they have relies on these representations made not just over the earliest but in the very the st the st reason is because in maine there is a cap on the non economic ali that ok well that's not a sinister terrible reason fact that's a reason why someone who's you know is citizen should be able to avail himself of the constitutional rights he has here in this state that he would not have so this idea that we have conceded that made is the proper venue it is is to say it was fake so just so i'm very clear on this these these representation these these ads these packages all of that is not based on anything mr seymour said it's based on testimony from their witness and their documents so they have put on t v and radio ads to say nothing that's very important we understand iction before the trial so they're not going to appeal here on that issue the only issue here on is that order that was after that would require them not to destroy documents or other lawsuits ok so case which required that the who is defendants were obligated to confirm a booking request or would automatically expire in your arms i don't know if you've ever read it in here a b and b or not but it's done on a website through a platform unfair or to the point is to say well we're your proof we're your proof this is not a motion to for summary judgment this is not a trial that you want on this is at the very beginning stages of loss and what illinois law says the successful better and the the person is offering the item at no communications and that person is offering it has no way of knowing or controlling who buy their product that's very different  said i'm interested in your your b and b and registered for a booking request but a booking request on their system that was not the end of their lewis defendants had to affirmative y decide whether they wanted to have julie gilbert from illinois and her boyfriend in his family illinois home and stay at their air b n b and that means that the it's completely different than the big cases but in your argument i think it's a i don't think it's correct if i send out on the world wide web an advertisement for my y home to to read it doesn't mean that i'm not targeting any because that's the ar we did know that we would never have put those in there if we knew better we had both a decision like and that's what that's what these people are telling the world on the back of the package and it's got a public safety issue that goes way beyond this case and all around the state around this so to your point what did the lewises know and what didn't they say were the motion to dismiss stage we haven't opposed that we don't know exactly what they say but we kidda never revealed the existence of both kinds of smoke detectors or the need but as i was saying there if you looked on the shelf in a home depot or mysteries of world work for decades the packaging in the zamora's girlfriend wrote to the lewises and said read this real quickly because hello my name is julie i'm from dam or scott but live in chicago i'm having a surprise th birthday for my boyfriend and we would love to stay in boothbay we are bringing his daughter son and two children who've never been to maine is your place available we we love it of self we look forward to hearing from you soon thanks so much so the record shows that completely is different from reading something around the room on the web at that moment the lewises knew that they were negotiating with people from the state of illinois and the people from the state of illinois would be staying at  to it in fact is quite foreseeable that there'd be candles matches all the things that go along with the parade right so the louis is knowing that the smoke alarms in their air baby rattle are inadequate logically omitted any information to the illinois citizens by saying ok the smoke detectors are not going to detect certain kinds of fires right they didn't say anything like that instead they agreed to allow the party or the celebration concede the communications were special order and it's very typical of what people do today in terms of their communications they often don't talk so this old fashioned idea that people are going to be in face to face and negotiate a contract doesn't really apply in many of these consumer situations it's but the important thing i think that the cases tell us is don't look at that number of communications look at what happened in the communication and we contend that the evidence the allegations show that what happened is the lewises were advised that they were negotiating with people from the right that their children there that there be a th birthday there and they failed and they omitted to disclose what they knew remember their affidavits don't contain any such claim to the illinois played up so they lured them in without giving the morning is what we're saying and yes i think if you do that whether it be in one conversation or two or three whatever it be i think that is a sufficient basis under which you can exercise personal jurisdiction the cases talk about the not enough but we also allege it with regard to the communication albeit limited that was an opportunity for the lewis defendants to say something about the smoke detectors that you're going to have a th birthday while look for this that's another point i would make if there was an inch of insufficiency in the the pleading and the complaint the complaint would be dismissed without prejudice to refile that's not what happened here the smoke detectors did not provide a reasonable opportunity for occupants to escape a fire in the house the louis defendants knew or recently should have known that the house was not safe and that its furnishings run reasonably dangerous and that the smoke detectors did not provide a reasonable opportunity for occupants to skip a fire the louis defense made these false and misleading representations about the house with the intent that renters and their guests like miscall bert and mr zamora would rely on these birthday we talked about it before i'll just touch on it again that nexus that i talked about her to the form conduct of the lewises and the underlying controversy is quite close because the lewis defendants were advised of the fact that there would be this birthday th birthday gathering right and they knew about the deficiency of the smoke alarms and that is what is alleged to be in the underlying controversy that those smoke alarms fail to of excuse me and i talk a little bit about the personal jurisdiction analysis of this specifically with regard to kiddo it's important that the court understand that does not contend that it would be unfair for them to be to defend this lawsuit kidda has conceded that through its sale of tens of millions of dollars of smoke detectors here through its attendance  know however contends that they're not subject to personal just jurisdiction here because there's no affiliation between killing oil and the underlying and when we go out of our own homes and stay elsewhere whether within the state or other places what we know about fire safety especially regard to smoke detectors comes from the representations made by the smoke detector they could have a huge multibillion dollar liability for all the sm of the other thing i want to say about bristol myers squibb is that's a case in which the court did find that there was no specific pushing fiction in that case really points of the difference between that the person wires case in our case in bristol we're different because we'll touch and they don't refute the fact their testimony supports that they made misrepresentations in the state of illinois relied upon by mr zimmerman and those affected his ability the burger king or versus sue which case says the rationale for permitting the exercise of a personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant who purposely directs its activities for form even if that that's here in in a huge way mr zamora's children are now adults with their own children they've got daycare they've got a mother who's terminally ill they both have very they both have jobs they cannot jurisdiction that that shows that the the conduct by the singular conduct by the lewis dependence justifies the exercise of personal conflate the two throughout this litigation they are two separate companies two different defendants and now i'm trying to make my argument but the courts are well aware that we are here on a jurisdiction not a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim we're not here to deny all of the al at this stage to admit or deny the allegations of the complaint we are here on the issue of jurisdiction so when looking at the complain and looking at the other record evidence we have to see whether or not that record supports a specific st action finding and we would ask this court to a farm the trial court but there is no specific jurisdiction an argument that was made this morning but i'm not going to go through all of the credence to those allegations today defendants made false and misleading representations quote throughout the country including cook county illinois and maine and there is nothing specific  advertisements he didn't see any other advertisements we have no idea what products he was talking about when he allegedly saw those advertisements in the home depot we don't know what's if they were st specific smoke alarm they even match the smoke alarms that were eventually found to be and the residents in maine that here are alleging that he'll ledges and obviously could or would deny were defective there is simply no time to illinois focuses his argument it's not just a minimum contact analysis but the allegations have to directly arise out of or substantially connect to the claims in this and this case and there's simply no evidence through twenty seven and thirty through thirty two again they're identical they say my father told me that he saw advertisements and sort of displays dismiss the case against the fans for lack of jurisdiction that is the issue that is before it does that you have to do the illinois courts have jurisdiction in my case over the lowest in illinois for a fire that occurred in may that is what we need to trust and judge gillespie when he wrote his memorandum order he did an outstanding job of going through what it takes to do a jurisdiction he raised the question of who initiated this contact where was this contract or and where was the performance that take place and where was that negotiation and he looked at those issues and he said well this transaction performed obviously it was going to be performed and mate that's where the house was that's where the owners live ultimately that's where the fires and finally where was the contract negotiation and i think is his be in the type of case the thing is that doesn't mean that because we we've got to select or accept a particular rancher that doesn't mean there's not specifically targeting illinois residents they targeted the u s or countries with the information that is in the in the air b n b website describing the various years they have no knowledge where the renters might come from nor do they really care because what they ate the entering of the contract somewhere over the internet doesn't matter whether they're sitting in illinois website it's not something we control the information is put up there for people to look at and mak into i'm going to get into the context more specifically but then you look at duty is the action relate to what does this cause of action relates to not accepted as true for the facts as it relates to the cause of action those facts the mean anything when it comes to jurisdiction because in the air b n b information it says smoke that information went out to the public long before miss gilbert the psychic she wanted to have a party in may so that is the type of activity that is directed to the world as a whole it's not the type of activity that's directed either at the potential renter or what's important in the minimum contact analysis is was it something that was directed to the state and it was at some action in the state so that the so called fraud or maybe it's very relevant to the case once it gets going somewhere it really has no relevance to whether there's jurisdiction for th the the thing that i would like to talk about is the minimum time and that's really what this case is about and i just like to go down what those activities are so we get a itself is not sufficient to render jurisdiction over the party the post that's the st thing the lowest of the next thing that occurred was julie gilbert contacted the l and the response to that email was even short was one sentence that's what i look forward to meeting now helps out for the plaintiff once you to believe that those two emails they didn't wasn't brought up and i didn't say but in their papers they say there are two other occasions where the lewis has agreed to amend the contract if it could be one was there's a we make it easy to place an extra day or two from your host training if they accept you can only play acting for a little longer so extend your stay you miss gilbert and request a reservation that means we targeted bill when doesn't mean anything along those lines because the targeting to the extent that it existed is what went out to the entire country and to the whole world to anybody wh senior relied on this deception or great to remain at the house during his birthday celebration helpful said you there is absolutely no information in this record on which you can determine that this allegation exists it's right there in the st minute