the south african individuals and the american corporation is there while the contractors are different but employers all together correct a contract here was entered into between the u s employer to for an individual d by her colleague who had assaulted her before while she was in california she lives that she was subjected to discriminatory and retaliatory conduct my her supervisor while she was in california and she also alleged that she complained about her mistreatment to any evidence concerning any of those california activities that would not be equally accessible to the court in south africa it would require intranet discovery because most of these events occurred over whatsapp or e mail or  teleconference but the courts have found that in this age of technology access to evidence is so clear that the factor should not weigh in favor of dismissal but rather it's more expensive sas as a neutral of the legal relationship by the contract is sufficient i think i'm just having a hard time so there's an there's an end agreement that's governed by california law for your client when she entered into this agreement with basically what the employment agency was effectively the plymouth agency and then she had a separate contract with the south african company correction as necker act there is only one contract and the one country she went to work for the south act for african company and you say that that employment is covered by the original contract yes the employment agreement states that she will serve her employer and she was serving him for the us and city by working and south  international borders and so a california jury could easily relate to a plaintiff from their state who signed an employment contract in their state who experienced harassment and discrimination abroad which also continued while she worked remotely from home and the th circuit has made clear that juries routinely addressed objects that are foreign to them addressed in foreign companies foreign cultures and foreign languages and the existence of any of these should not counsel in favor of dismiss and where is do you allege that some of this harassment took place over e mails and apps and video conferencing while she was located in california yes and it was in his reports failure to recognize education of the case yes so there has been there's at least one court decision which we cited from th circuit where a letter was a letter actually allowed a california party to sort out  we have investigated yet but we would look into it and with sufficient planning i think the one case the th circuit case did there were issues with the plans of waiting over a year to issue the letters we would certainly move very quickly if we when and if we good morning may it please the court my name is chris helmick i'm counsel on behalf of the defendants this court should affirm the conditional dismissal of this action based on the doctrine of form one convenience because the trial court did not abuse its discretion the parties do not dispute the standard of review here abuse of discretion where there is a dispute though is how you weigh and apply that standard we contend it's hinkson and i know the courts for milieu are with the test but i want to highlight a couple features because it demonstrates where the plaintiff's arguments go wrong it's a two part test the st part says does did the child i don't really think any of this to here with the area is a matter of law and any of these points then it's an abuse of discretion i agree your honor and and the district court did not air as a matter of law when you applied the test and you ask correct rule of law for relief being requested yes the court unmistakably did that's the rule of law that's up to novo review then when you go to the fourteen part form nine convenience argument or assessment two parts for determining an adequate alternative form and then twelve different factors in private and public interests those are fact the terminations into finding is the use of discretion you have to find that the court's decision was either illogical implausible or not reasonably yes you're on the adequate c of the for the declaration you submitted in this case on the issue i recognize to some remedy standard is not a high standard but all you have is subject to the underlying merits of plaintiff's case south african law provides for remedy for claims brought on comparable grounds including counterparts to those claims permits them to pay money damages etc this is in if this were a pleading it would not pass if they were no facts anything about what the nature of the claims would be under south african law how they differ from us law what are the elements what are the precise types of it there's nothing to permit an assessment of the you know what it whether or not the some remedy is met why isn't this enough to reverse it's true that it's true that the that the it's the south african attorney who has a masters in labor law in south africa did not identify each specific cause of action and its counterpart what he did do was explain the south african system that stablished to handle these precise types of claims and he explained that there are counterparts i agree with you that he did not go into the exact statute think the numbers i just want to know what you know are the causes of action that are equivalent well he says there there are counterparts i know he says that what are they sexual harassment wrongful termination retaliation all of those are available in south africa that's what he says and that's his testimony sure that's exactly what he says well he says he really have a very well know highly sophisticated and developed set of laws seven  point to anything in south africa your honor that the standard for finding an adequate alternative for him is that there is some relief for the long sighted and it's not and now it's not a perfect mirror image i know that can you just say again if i anything whether it's perfect or imperfect he does list sexual harassment and in his complaint in his declaration as affidavit he does discuss that he's reviewed the complaint and that there are causes of action in south africa for every one of these now of course it's not it's not necessarily going to be a u s statute but there is an end and analog and the question then is is is there some remedy for these wrongs and the answer is yes but this is take my word for it he did not give the court and he didn't give us any independent ability to assess whether or not the claim he's making of counterparts is substantiated this isn't a high standard but how does this give us anything to assess whether even the low standard has been met well because because he  identifies how the body of law as a stablished he identifies that there is this body of law here i even identifies that south african labor law applies extraterritoriality and that and that  the district court did not green say who it would apply to clearly the the us entity signed the contract and then there are individuals and a foreign entity that are not signatories to it employment agreement that she signed right and this is about conduct of people who work for this employer while she was working there too you know you're on the conduct complained of there's not a single individual who works for g jam international is a humanitarian relief organization that has organizations around the world that raise funds for it jam usa raises private donations and makes those and i don't think there's enough in the record really answers that there isn't much in the record that's true but one of the things that that the organisations will will do is help find people to implement some of these programs i'm not denying that there is a relationship between them but they are separate distinct legal entities when she was in south sudan and also at the meetings and south africa was she in in all the action she did was she acting underneath the employment contract with the usa hannity yes your own i do want to reach the point that your honor raised initially and that is this judgment any judgment rendered by this court is not enforceable in south africa and so it begs the question that we do know that because mr higgs explains that there is a six part test for a foreign judgment to be domesticated and enforced in south africa and he says that in this case the st test is not met its jurisdiction effectively over the over the defendants that there resident in matters for the very reason you wrote in kaare hano the reason we have formed nine convenience as a doctrine is because our broad jurisdiction and venue provisions can allow somebody to come into these courts for the purpose of harassment they have never told us why they're suing these foreigners when they know they can't enforce the judgement your question your honor is why don't you just dismiss them that's my question why what we're only here because the foreigners are here hon asa stands for this very strong presumption in favor of the plaintiff's choice of form that's right but but the harassment is is i want you to come to america defend this action knowing all along that when you go home nothing's going to happen because there can't be enforced i'm sorry i'm not i'm slightly confused you're saying the plaintiffs harassing your client yes for suing them knowing that they cannot this is the harassment that your honour's talking about as the genesis for why we have the doctrine in the st place it's to prevent foreigners from being hauled into a us court when there's no point in them being here and it's harassment and piper aircraft says the same thing if there's no reason for the foreigner to be in this court and this is a very unique circumstance with this case it's very rare that you would find a u s judgment is not going to be enforced in a foreign country but that's the instance here and it's because of south africa can walk it's not because they're in the gym and you can't just collect from them it's that the government says we're going to protect our citizens against you this precise judgment all right