implication outside the district court cut short the process focusing on whether the complaint did or did not sufficiently allege the elements of forms of immunity  property and is germany was taken by the german government through a series of steps that started in one nine hundred ninety one and then it in two thousand and four it alleges that the property is under control previous two potential customers to give the police and purchase prices and other details necessary to make a bid for his the property the complaint in paragraph which was this an allegation that this was  ongoing at the time the complaint was filed ongoing at the time the complaint was filed the complaint says hasn't geisha and continues to engage at the present time now how does the company back that up with allegations in point six billion in sales over the continuing years as reported in statistics from the b b b to the united states with the largest market for these it's appropriate properties in order to sell that volume of turkish to the united states in order for the v v v g to be using it to continue the commercial activity in the us namely marketing and sales to us customers how was it done the precise details will early days through the internet marketing continue to reach the us market we don't know specifics of estimates but we well and we don't know the how about how much money  i mean beyond the statement that vision something ongoing that it seems to me you have some stress and you make some specific allegations about what what came out of the office to here and there is no question that when the office was here there was ongoing commercial activity th issue is whether you have played with sufficient specificity that the website has been a source of ongoing commercial sales in the united states and it seems at best quite vague about that the complaint need not specify the dollar amount nor specific cells in the united states the inference that we're asking the court to me is that from this wildly successful office space britain were up aeration to shut down the office in new york and all commercial activities in the united states and so as of the moment the complaints filed those commercial activities which have been very  the complaint this complaint is entitled to the inference when it says the same functions that were done in the brick and mortar now being done over the internet some of those activities are continuing to target the u s market that's all that we what we have these allegation that the new york office closed down twenty some years ago and then just very vague allegations about anything that's taking place after that and  obviously not bothered the district court and i think that and this i agree with you if i understood his cabin his question that doesn't seem right if there are facts to support some ongoing commercial activity united states that that would be all that hard to  the us there i think the court will entertain the motions to dismiss on the grounds that there was not a formal right and positive action that they've been in violation of international law and that taking had those steps the nile restitution has been a statue that said we're not going to give americans implicitly we're not going to give americans the treaty compensation standard limiter decision not based on the for there to be present commercial activity in the u s at the time of the lawsuit so the sovereign could essentially decide to in their commercial for this actually to require a nexus requirement either the property has to be here or the property can be back in that in the form post day but the agency that owns or controls that prism commercial entity here and the motion for reconsideration right to the attention of the court a specific commercial contract that was acted on as recently as a few months before the complaint was filed but the court refused to anything that was wrong that was a lack of due process for a claimant who in her complaint said there is ongoing use of the internet to do with it had been done in the north office the fact that it isn't more specific is based on the fact that she didn't have access to more by not even holding germany to this standard that this court has imposed time and time again that the defendant must come forward and show by declarations and documents that the allegations in the complaint are not true so if for example germany had presented the district court with an affidavit that said no when we close the office we shut down all contact with the united states and there were no it was argued that does not engage in commercial activity united states that's pretty strong that is the same bald personally defense that germany is claiming was in the complaint as the ball cursory allegation they didn't back it up with anything but then you you came back in opposition to the motion dismiss and page seven  internet marketing posting information on the internet allows users from throughout the world to sign up for newsletters portions of the website are in english and then the total amount done enough in the complaint and so i was looking at that just to point out that paragraph which summarizes i think in the light most favorable to you you put forth your best arguments what is in the complaint doesn't really say much of anything about the united states that that paragraph taken of context does not do the job of putting the complaint out patients in the light was ok but mrs schubert if you look down the list of the exhibits that were attached with that one leading all of those exhibits were literature search but it is alleged here and the reasonable inference is that she will be able to show that in fact these sales down in new york continue if you have a website and no one from united states back up this allegations that the d v c continued these activities that were carried out of the office using his internet and you in the way we would do that this we would ask for the e mails back and forth from the u we feel that it certainly by sitting back and relying only on the complete allegations and mischaracterizing them and leaving out these references of ongoing commercial had to be in the united states thought they could get away with it they said section from sovereign immunity this is a are you saying i should not interpret that as true that literally so that it doesn't matter e the expropriation exception requires that the property be present in the united states or they'd be jurisdiction over the federal republic of germany in this case the complaint alleges that the property is in germany so  there really is no argument that there is any jurisdiction under the expropriation exception against the republic of germany with regard to the v v v there are really two courts t argument one if b v v g as an agency or instrumentality of germany is carrying out a coup or a governmental function then it too is regarded as the sovereign state and the same standard applies namely that the property has to be present in the united states in order for there to be jurisdiction did you put any facts with your motion to dismiss that will help us to decide that question or are we just stuck with what's on the the references that we put in our motion word to what we judge wilkins is that the complaint says that this agency was set up and they used the governmental function of of  dealing with property that had been expropriated or otherwise was during the stage in which the russians were in what became east germany the east germans were and then you have to reunification this seized job which is a which we want it was a governmental function was to make some water out of this and deal with the property that had been under the east german system there was no exercising or functional well to be perfectly candid you can argue that we fly around there are some there is some authority for the fact that you have to look to the original expropriation and not to  with as well as with the property but i've made the argument i think that this is a core function but i want to move on to tell you that our position is even if it's not a core function if you regard  agency in instrumentality not to be regarded as the state then this standard which the statutory standard which you re cited a few minutes ago a judge will consider is twofold one that the property has to be owned or t markets via the internet to customers in the united states on an ongoing basis i don't believe so your honor in today's world suppose it's a marketing accompanying by evidence  one sale said enough i don't believe so your honor i think what's your case all support for that the and i think we put this in a footnote in in our brief that if you look at the minimum in analogous of minimum kind of tax there are cases that say that simply marketing through the internet is not is not sufficient to have minimum contact with the jurisdiction now i recognize that's not under to customers in the united states but there's never been any sales let's just suppose that but there's never been a sales call we're trying we're trying to get customers and one more here in the united states is that as a legal matter good enough and uncertain about that actually well i don't think so and i think you have to look at this through the lens of what the what the pleading standard is saying no no no ok so you want me to accept  just accept we entity are marketing to customers in the united states we're not good at it we don't have a sale you know this is editorial but we have a sale yet is that good enough that we're marketing to customers in the still accurate yes yes that statement is accurate what the wii does is they have a new look a website which is available worldwide and part of it's in english and that's that's it suppose or are seldom if you know me so i mean that the point is that an moment there could be say all factually it was someone in the united states well it could be but the complaint the complaint the complaint no longer is sufficient if his it's the nineteen plausible standard under the hammer drilling by the supreme court and this court's opinion in all wins you now need to flesh out but it's not i'm sorry i'm sorry in iraq but it's not implausible just i don't think you tell me if this is wrong it's not implausible just as a general matter that this website with its marketing efforts would generate a sale of the united states is that implausible no but that's not to stand it any more the standard is you need to provide facts and in the words of jurors justice briar's opinion and then as picked up court after that that the word is you need to prove these allegations if they could put in their complaint what they now say in their briefing in other words that there was one point six five billion in sales through two thousand and eight a contract with the team on it in two thousand and ten and the presentation regarding that contract and washington d c in twenty fourteen if those had been in the complaint that's sufficient to a commercial activity every well and i don't think that the last piece is because this was a speech the presentation in d c you know since when i don't believe a presentation to an international organization in the district of columbia about a contract dealing with agricultural efforts in egypt is enough to be commercial activity about the other two though it's a complete hidden away of one point six five billion dollars in sales through two thousand and eight and the two thousand and ten contract with the established that that would be commercial activity but the other piece which judge wilkins read before we started is that the has to owner or operate the property and w here is just sort of an interesting construct what they're suing for is the fact that mrs hsu morath did not get sufficient compensation from a state not the federal german apparatus but the city of alexandria took two feet of their front lawn to widen the road and the city of alexandria the commonwealth of virginia didn't give them fair and adequate compensation that's what they are alleging in this complaint the agency of state agency of germany the state of thirty or which is not a party in this case they are alleging that there was not sufficient compensation issued by the state of the ring and if they are seeking to whole be responsible and germany responsible for that they are really and that is it to set a goal to the notion  owns or operates the property what they're saying is we filed for compensation we got an award we're dissatisfied with the award and now we want to sue the federal republic of germany and the agency that sells the property that it that doesn't square with the notion of owns or operates this property which is a requirement expropriation exception so when i would would i would say to you is that when you look at it as a whole the allegations dealing with a nonparty just compensation and therefore we're going to sue the federal republic of germany and an agency that's george was sale of expropriated property there was no indication anywhere in the complain hones or operates this property so even if you you know the commercial activity leg of the construct is one but the other equally important one is that the v g owns or operates the property and if you look at that first paragraph a complaint it basically all it does is resign the statute it rewards it you know in a common language but all it is is saying they owner operated property there is no one iota of evidence presented him the sales marketing to potential buyers in the united states so it's the first paragraph of the complaint right but the point is it also alleges in just repeating the statutory language that this agency owns or operates the property there is other than saying it there are no laws there is no flesh on the bones with regard to that that is an absolute requirement only denied and they also argue that they should have under rule fifty nine been able to get some relief and i'd like to point out i know the court knows this but i want to say that the standard of review for that is different the miss issued forth once me to strike when i made my decision and the answer to that by was sure it is that we don't really you know that's what the judge says but we don't believe we  think that the judge cooper said what he meant and meant what he said secondly that was only presented in our reply to the opposition don't be in one hundred something pages of material that was attention to the complaint and if they wanted it considered in the complaint should have it so my time is up thank you very much  let me correct some very serious mistake in spite was in council first of all the complaint alleges that germany in violation of international law took the property under the theory of state responsibility which is is marketing v n internet site even ongoing marketing be an internet site to buyers all over the world including potential buyers in the united states good enough to say that you're engaged in commercial activity in the united states if you have no such fires in the united states absolutely if the general hold in this limitation because any any end to t engaged in sales o would be enough in answer to the question that jeff welcome to put section six you know through the statute defines commercial activity either as a single transaction or as a course of transactions it doesn't say that that single transaction had t is a plausible inference that having sold so many properties to americans they continue to sell properties to americans who just didn't need an office so nobody really this is a problem trying to be helpful with this question so your point  really complain a white most favorable there is ongoing mark you have to be including the buyers in the united states there may or may not be buyers in the united states but we've all wage sufficiently to get past the motion to dismiss that there were limited to the sale of consulting services and i can give you three references to the record to show that that's what they were doing in the months unrelated to the sale expropriated properties that would be enough and that's why it was so wrong for the court not to focus on the outcome determinative aspect of that evidence if you let it in we would have seen that the b b b g was selling the sultan services on the usa id contract earlier he didn't consider it because he failed to focus on the part of the rule that said even if it could have been presented earlier if in the interest of justice it's necessary to let it in he should have and that's what this court held in several cases the peter case the people who for the ethical treatment of animals and in good luck nursing with the evidence the court said the evidence could have been found earlier but we can't let this decision lie ass's because it would be wrong it would come out the wrong way if you let the evidence in now the outcome is different that's all that we asked that this court do just fine and that the district court by failing to acknowledge that isn't true that the information that was put in with the motion to reconsider was out there to be seen just by going to the internet page the internet page did not say to minus a u s company has purchased exactly that you have a representative of the b b beauty giving her consulting services report to him our next delivery in washington and in the last page of the report she des