present course i would like to reserve maybe three or four minutes but all this case comes after a decision in the district court of granting a motion to dismiss for lack of specific that a contract that mr weston asserts was formed in fact was not for the second count is for intentional interference with a separate contrac one in which mr proposed and his partner who was a flame to follow mr madoff's entered into to sell a technology the buyer of the technology was a company called h contract there are two different analytical framework for looking at whether there's your stick given these two different claims on the oral agreement because it is a tort claim interference with sales agreement that contract we look to whether or not mr west purposely directed his activities at or you think  own activity connections with the form state though it is still relevant that there be injury in the state for that by itself is not enough though it is still relevant that the it will reveal that mr weston established substantial long term obligations with mr poe to perform that contract in california with the direct well it does your honor and my view for this reason if i enter into a contract with you and i'm from pennsylvania and you're going to do everything that you're going to do under that contract here and you meet with s here and your efforts are the reason that money starts flowing that i can now claim it is i think jurisdictionally impressible for me to say well i only came to california a couple times to help you but all the other help i gave you was from pennsylvania what i have done from pennsylvania and in this case what mr weston did from michigan from texas from mexico and in part from heller fornia was to assist in the marketing and the attraction of capital to this this opportunity so that he was under long standing precedents from the circuit  declaration was he was an owner of this technology he was a partner with mr coe when that technology that mr weston is an owner of being demonstrated in california central purchasers or investors that is substantial connection with he actually meet with potential investors or he potentially did he actually meet with potential investors he met with in california or from california he met with through both of which were from california and he met with them in california for this particular technology that was yes and it was all related to furthering the contract that with the that was rated shows on novels to potential investors first with peter work and there is no dispute that he met and helped the relationship with potential investors and well i'm i'm sorry if i misunderstood your question what mr weston did was once these investors had been  and were at the point of wanting a demonstration on two separate occasions mr weston came here he met with those investors his sister then demonstrations the second atte or for purchase or was a t p technologies they actually entered into a relationship that generated money that they were paying t in this case mandelson pako in california they had suggested that they would create a facility near sacramento and while he was here assisting in the demonstration to mr weston announced that he wanted to work for that enterprise in california so what i think we have your honour's is a admittedly out of state resident who has formed a partnership or going to his contentions has formed a partnership as become an owner of technology as a self described role in  mandelson call in advancing this technology so that he is attractive to an investor he does that from michigan but he does it in california as well and whether you center in california mr o has a high and are not high and testify in his declaration that everything he did was either in or from california and that this technology though it certainly had attractiveness to the automobile industry in the state of michigan also had far reaching applications and was not meant to customers or potential investors in the automotive industry in fact if one goes into the record and reads mr it was declaration about the contacts he made in attempting to attract investors to this technology the bulk of it was in not by that alone not by that alone because that's what walden says you cannot do but when you add to it the fact that what mr weston says he was doing in michigan was intended to support this impacting the state of california in a very significant intentional way in order this time not to create or perform an agreement but to hold it hostage because he saw where he he feared that he was not a party to it and in this case what he did was to first attempt to extort mr o here in california he did that twice medically he didn't come into california to do that but one doesn't have to be physically present in order to have these contacts and certainly not to commit the crime of mixed or sion the crime of extortion is a contact with came to michigan mr weston had a discussion in michigan with mr perot in which they either did or did not create a partnership there was a second ca and provide assistance on the few occasions mr weston is asked to go to california to do demonstrations the other contacts with california  plaintiff contends and then there's the phone call which to mr mann i was in the bottom again characterized as a threat which plaintiff says well clearly it was intended that that w threat would have be conveyed to mr the co in colorado or if he'd been in paris in paris that's the connection with california and each case is purely  unilateral activity mister and walden you go into the actual criticism of the courts and now  analysis that the supreme court makes and walter it says you first you must focus on the defendant's contacts that the plaintiffs have that the defendant's actions must show a connection to the conduct which is in which mr weston supposedly is a veiling himself of california is either something initiated by mr bercow asking him to come to california or  cited by both parties g h e x capital versus the third bank which is actually discussing burger king i believe and it says with the defendant must quote deliberately engage in significant activities within the form state or must create continuing obligations between himself and the resident in order to allow jurisdiction a contract alone cannot establish sufficient minimum contact and the and and if we focus on the defendant's conduct is that sufficient when you look at the entire process i think that should be a highly realistic approach well what is what are the facts we have three years of day monday through friday or monday through saturday whatever work by and by mr weston in michigan the formation of the contract if it was formed in michigan the mr weston in california were done at the specific request and instruction by mr polk mr mann what is the realistic view as to where this contract was to well the checks and roth were marquez they were going to write the checks to mr mark as from los angeles but in fact if you look at what the what the actual holding of the case was there was a there were negotiations over the contract in california and be all of it was assumed and understood that the production and distribution of the movie would take place in california or from california because there is nothing in this oral agreement that requires or necessitates mr bercow to be performing in california he says he did that but that's his unilateral choice them i am not sure specifically but i believe in he was pleased and you know that was principal responsibility was to make sure this thing would run and a potential investor and hopefully hopefully invest but i would also point out this is about investment the lawsuit is about the sale of the thing the agreement was if there was an agreement that they would share three ways the of the proceeds from the sale of that company that's to this person people in ohio and australia and if that was interfered with that occurred in michigan o even the threat suppose the threats that were supposedly directed at mr because in california if you if you analyze it that was a threat to disrupt the relationship in ohio that's correct and he does and as as the record discloses he doesn't even receive the money in california the money goes to month i think it's montana or australia so the only thing m from california is decide where the money should go and the from when it's when it's received and mr weston interfered with his right to get the money mr west in that  said that the reason there was jurisdiction in color was because of the nature of the horde of liable which occurs wherever there is a publication and the impact which added to the reason to hold jurisdiction in california even of defendants and not physically finical was that the defendants knew and understood that the impact of their statement would be to disrupt actual relationships between the toward occurred either in michigan or ohio when mr weston spoke with mr coats and said i am an owner and i know the formula which violated the warranty is mr the co given that there were there was no other owner and there was no one else who knew the knew the formula so if he did that that happened in ohio and it disrupted a relationship in ohio not in california therefore i think any way you look at the wall then what walton tells us you have to come down and say there are no significant contacts that would permit specific personal jurisdiction you have is the sending in to warn you of extortion the man's that says if you do not pay me i will find secrets and expose you or i will ruin you now yes those did not come physically into california they went to mr mann i was in the battle with the expectation and in fact the express question from mr weston to mr mann it does not because what that does your honor with all due respect is to cut off everything that came before and say we only look at the day he sent the extortionate email we only look at what he did michigan when he tried to interfere with his contract but this was a continuing course of conduct that had started with the oral agreement in according to mr weston everywhere you have two thousand and nine  in march of fourteen i'm sorry merchant of twelve with his interference with this contract when he didn't get what he believed he was entitled to that is and you're honored to me this is a very important point because both in the sixth circuit and in the ninth circuit the defendants entire course of conduct has to be analyzed and what mr west couple points and judge make them quick i will make a very quick the fact that mr weston was asked to come to california to demonstrate this does not change whether he purposely availed himself of california by coming here if when one reads the record closely one sees that what mr weston first said was i spoke with mr cole in michigan in two one point counsel made and i will rest on this is that a mere contract with a former president is not purposeful element and i agree but if that contract calls for and actually results in performance in california or from outside california to support california based activity then it rises to the level of minimum contact it is not looking at the fact that substantial impact on the state of california that mr weston supported and came here physically twice to work and without i would ask you to reverse and thank you thank you very much counsel we appreciate your argument on the matter is