are you both ready to proceed then when you're r of looking at all of the facts and the doctrine here it is by its very nature and an act of will doctrine flexible and founded on fundamental fairness and that's unfair about illinois pardon me what's unfair facility and those people who do the manufacturing who are really on trial and who hear if the defense and be able to say no indeed we did manufacture privately we did indeed needs  great there are potentially i think about a dozen witnesses only three were from michigan three or four from sri or four from michigan the rest there are several from illinois and then the plaintiff is from california and the plaintiffs has several witnesses in california and then the person who is the chief executive of the plaintiff has recently relocated to work and so be good for you i'm sorry to interrupt it's no good because the facility that's on trial is in michigan and i all of the inspections are going to be there or witnesses are going to be there country and there's there's no indication that the work related suppose louisiana titles didn't happen illinois but the court found that louisiana was the better place because all of and the ability to access the testimony all the the people who actually did the manufacturing those people are there now they've said that there are witnesses elsewhere but the people who are contract with a defendant corporation that was right here in dollars growth rate and world contract that was formed after their in person visit in grand rapids michigan nonetheless contract was entered into that if that's not clear there's that's not clear this is an oral contract there is not a writing there's a net a non disclosure agreement that's attached that is governed by delaware know because the manufacturing what the facility can manufacture they have to determine that and that's been the people base their the vice president of manufacturing the quality control officer the national accounts person are all people in michigan and mr whoa check our witness stated that those are the people primarily interacted with eating rabbit just raise a new trial court and better position to determine the impact on its track it absolutely in the trial court said that that the judge said in so many words that he has enough cases and that if you can get rid of it in that something that all trial judges say you know gee if i could shift this case to somebody else to do but i mean there is a difference clearly can't can't county michigan has far less cases it's total about granola bars that were made actually in michigan that we're supposedly not conforming they're going to hear about visits by eighteen rabbits to michigan and they're going to necessarily ask themselves why am i sitting here hearing this case what what does this have to do with me and there is a local interest in deciding local controversies which is one of the other were public sectors and  i'm in that believe the plan case that i don't think that we should be i think it's unlikely that a two page judge would ever stand the jury to grand rapids michigan that's just that's a fair so i wouldn't want to be i want to ask for that and to do ph county courts and community shouldn't be burdened in this particular case at the trap or its findings  were reasonable when you look at the declaration ns and the evidence mr whoa check out her sites vice president of manufacturing stated that the eighteen rabbits employees came to michigan the name to the primary her side employees beasts in michigan who interacted with th e manufacturing happen there and each in rabbits again as a foreign playing to it is not is a california company is not based in illinois that was with question was for him if you look at the transactions you see ok the production may have occurred in michigan as defendant alleges but plaintiff also has to perform under the agreement and plaintiff performing it was delivered in illinois so you have two jurisdictions involved in this transaction illinois is the place of plaintiff performance and michigan arguably is the place of fairness performance so i would argue and i have argued and i believe the trial court agree that that is an indication of the cause of action a rise in illinois at least in part that goes to the standards set forth by this court in the wild a case where the court reviewed what what was necessary for an action to rise within the state of illinois and that's entitle a party to substantial difference in their choice form in the wilder case this court agreed that they were in action or acts occur in illinois pursuant to the landmark decision in the case occurred gives rise to an action in illinois and plaintiffs choice of form is entitle to substantial deference and so that's really our main point there's obviously in the record a number of transactions that occurred if we believe occurred in illinois and are very relevant to the action of the give rise to the action of the i believe the primary factor is that  favor the michigan form that is a factor but also there are other factors for example what if the headquarters in illinois the employees in illinois directed the michigan facility to evidence to indicate that that would be necessary at this point but i'm not sure that we're there yes not necessary it's a possibility so possibility surely it would not be possible to visit the michigan site at the same time there's no allegation that the michigan facilities in the exact same condition that it was when the manufacturing occurred so i'm not sure that it was a site visit would be even valuable this morning but if it was appeared to arise in both illinois and michigan and that the cause of action rose at least in part in illinois and that was a factor in the additional factor was with respect to the supreme court's holding as counsel advised the standard review of course is abuse of discretion and hudson as you so indicated yes of course the court can affirm on any basis in the record and i must apologize in preparing my br in hindsight i realize that what i should have done is prepare a statement of facts were at the lead which i did not do i should have done it because i believe there are all missions in the statement of facts that were presented by a interacted with the plaintive and those facts or alleged in the complaint defendants who way vice presidents made misrepresentations during telephone status calls that was during the negotiation  which is a substantial burden on any you know commercial transaction that was a decision that was presented to illinois in whose lives it was made by the owner or we think that particular decision was very significant in this case because it allowed that prevented the plaintiff from having any opportunity for self how this is all multi production run reproductions and when fail when defendant failed to produce them are going to have already paid for what they didn't receive so they had no opportunity to mitigate their losses in this case and so i think the it's a significant fact occurring in illinois occurring at the illinois headquarters it's all testimony what those witnesses could testify wheaten where they can testify in grand rapids that's correct and i believe if you just look at the numerosity of the witnesses you know there is really no discussion of is most centrally located in convenient all the parties then you know then to the point of choice of form should prevail obviously we're entitled to substantial difference because we believe this contract cause of action rises in illinois the case law does require the defendant alleged backs indicating that illinois or the alternative forum is more convenient for all the parties and witnesses in this case they did not do that  i mean this you have to say that in so many words you have to use the word convenience well i don't know that you have to use the word inconvenient specifically but there's no discussion of travel expense there is no discussion of time expense  you know travel times there is no discussion of you know any burden on you one way versus michigan and i think that's a good hurdle that must be you know that's not really in dispute but we believe that illinois has a substantial interest in this case because the financial aspects of this transaction occurred in the law and as much as this case is a case about production and manufacturing it's also a case about the financial aspects of the of the agreement and we're going to need witnesses and there's going to be evidence that's related to that that comes out of illinois illinois has a substantial interest in  a very substantial difference between the total number of cases that have been filed and you ursus the number of cases they've been that are filed and get on the machine i don't dispute that gross number of but i don't believe there's a sufficient breakdown in the numbers that have been provided to indicate we're talking about a lot of asian cases obviously but a judge's docket if it's full of a lot of asian cases it is going to translate much differently than you know four hundred traffic cases and i'm not sure that we know with those cases are we haven't been told that we just were given gross number so you know i believe the judge was clear you know like you said your honor and the judge would indicate it would be great if i had less cases but in this case he couldn't find any reason from the docket aspect that he should dismiss the case so i don't see any reason why you know there was an abus is just he's equally significant as the place where no one's legislator perform their portion of the agreement i think that is a significant factor and they're entitled to their significance we're entitled to our ears and we believe  complaint and also the counter affidavit attached to that belief motion before the trial