and we believe that mr cord erred with respect to the decision as to whether or not jurisdiction was proper for the central district los angeles we believe that there is a course of conduct as announced and walden would live there's a conduct that i'm having difficulty from this perspective of what the district court looked at the proper elements for specific jurisdiction we believe that they erred in missing there that he made this record yes nothing yes i think this record erred with respect to the walton decision and utilizing the the test to determine whether or not there was specific jurisdiction found and the facts supporting the complaint as it was filed and specifically we  specifically the district court didn't look at the course of conduct or the conduct as to whether it was meaningful to determine whether or not we have a specific jurisdiction on the part of the the defendant let's take d p e p a gee that's the best you got on that i don't even see any independent contacts with california by these entities and judge you're correct you don't see any in the in the record at this point that's correct  not and as i understand it you did not allege they were alter egos d s e we only argued that during the brief so it's correct so you didn't allege that in the in the underlying  that's correct ok so then we move to d s c right ok so tell me why india c you think there are sufficient namely they have equipment that they utilize in california that was the if you will the precursor to the establishment of a tunneling of a virtual private network between the parties so that we can transact business through california back out into the netherlands the issue of utilising in state resources to create a through a through path or through way if you will to induce commercial activity into and through california we believe satisfies the specific jurisdiction that the courts have looked at the ninth circuit and what while the well as i understand it you've got to have first intentional will of virtual tunnel of electrical connection if you will i'm not a technical afficionado but i can tell you that it wasn't just a mere internet passive activity it was in fact the if you will creation of a private network into california such that the parties would be able to transact control codes and sings and goes back out to a foreign state things signals were sent to california which signals could be sent to the other printing that's of the of the party that's that's correct the and without the california connection through the v p and network this is would work well judged partially correct there was two networks created this was in fact  a second essential that work on top of a cloud computing network so not to mislead the court truly there were two virtual networks two networks created but this one was required in order to satisfy the requirements of d h l so we established that network in order to maintain the business relationship and this was able to be accomplished because prior to the creation of the network d h l had preexisting equipment within the us and we believe also loud a license to expire continue to access our network for purposes of conducting business into and through california and back out into europe  you're saying but you're saying that that wasn't just something that happened in the ozone either through the cloud or through other computer programs where the defendant m have even known about it you're saying the defendant and the plaintiff together established this and the defendant knew that it was a major part of the network to go through camera low california correct judge  allowing this to take place and as a i'm going to judge judge's earlier question with respect to the express i mean taking it one step further than it was just looking at it from a the signals that were being transmitted were specifically between the parties at that point time to initiate the transaction well then if i understand which telling me  he said print requests to your california server causing this software to engage and create output data that was then sent back to the d s c camera so it wasn't just strictly defendant wasn't involved in the transition in state defendant was in state with respect to the track and the commercial transacting in order to get to us they went through their their own equipment in so this isn't what was left in walden we leave questions about virtual contacts for another day these were more than virtual contacts correct these are actual contacts with with roll equipment and real wires the express aiming as mad have you met all of the other burdens that you've got to meet in order to meet your like what about one which arises out of a relates to the defendants form related activities right so we believe that the defendant was already situ in situ in california having a server in place in california prior to gauging a business with dec systems so the forum was already and done applied if you will with commercial activity prior to our relationship if it doesn't the rice like  r d s sees other current regarding a non disclosure agreement for service agreements with third parties any relevance here only with respect to the if the third prong if it's as you suggested absolutely me leads to meeting yes to then i don't think there are other contacts regarding that nondisclosure agreement and the service agreement with respect to the the appellant's case and that is that there is no conduct that was expressly aimed at the forum by d s e netherlands only conduct those expressly aimed at decks as a supreme court decision walden tells us there is no personal jurisdiction in this forum over a form defendant whose has no contacts here other than its contacts with the plaintiff who happens to be a resident of this particular form of the  netherlands had only minor contacts with this forum soley because appellant decks chose to locate itself here and where they were only necessary to allow decks to send data out of the  the netherlands in the netherlands for services to be rendered by d s e netherlands in the netherlands so again the only contacts that we have with this forum are specifically because the decks chose to locate itself here which under wall is insufficient to establish the minimum context necessary to satisfy due process so you're suggesting that just because this was i mean california server which then prints the software or engages that software and creates output for the data in the netherlands and you're saying that is not expressively aiming at california it is not your honour's express just a minute you first of all sent this to a california corporation or california and and he wants a corporation which it again to another california entity to print it out that seems pretty aiming at california you didn't go to new york to send it to california leg tronic request it's made by d s c netherlands two decks to transmit print data and i think it's important to step back for a second and let's talk about this the v p and network before the secondary n network was set up because that informs us as to whether or not the conduct here was aimed at dex or aimed at the forum all right so the prove the first v p n set up the primary v p n was set up with  electronic requests would be sent by d s c neverland's to dex dex with then sent print data to the front end of a v p n that was set in europe data that was in transmitted through the european and receive this information in europe and transmit it to the netherlands for its use for its client in the netherlands that was the original set up for this relationship that is not expressly aimed at the form that is merely saying ok dex wherever you might be located whether it's venezuela canada united states mexico we're going to send this communications or you sent us this information for use in europe that system broke down because dex was having trouble communicating that information to the se netherlands in the netherlands that entirely european set of contacts broke down on decks and side and so decks said hey let's change this and so deck said let's do it with a united states connection here we're going to set up a system index sending now instead of putting that information that has information in the front end of its point in the united states that really point took the information the decks put in its front end of the brow of the prime secondary v p n took that information related to the netherlands for use th to solve a problem here this relationship had nothing to do with this forum only because dex experience problems here is why we have any formulated contacts i would i would say i would say in california if the a c doesn't have the contact with the ex in california the system doesn't work it's an intricate part of making  word isn't that a difference your honor i agree with you on the the factual difference between wald in this case however and you go through the question judge smith said which was intentionally aiming towards california never seemed at nevada he aimed at mr wallace money which was in georgia your and your i agree i grew the on those facts your honor however i think the important polar part of walden is not the specific facts and whether they apply cleanly here the important part of walden is the holding that the supreme court announced as a result of those facts and whether that holding applies to the facts that we have here well with the language has to be taken in context with the it's dexys fault that they had to use california because they couldn't deliver what they had agreed to in europe and i get that but it wasn't done without knowledge of your client right i mean your client might have been upset with it that we have to now send the material to the california and over and then back but they knew that the california connection was part of the system now we know with eight knots that what they originally signed up for certainly your honor that  connection in the united states but again when we when we apply the principle the holding the basic core rationale of walden we ask ourselves we can we can ask ourselves simple question dex had chosen to locate itself in canada what would be seen as a lens contacts with this for the answer is not there would be none that is exactly the holding of wild weather but that but the problem comes in i guess i'm going to test you just a little the problem comes they are in california you did initiate contact with them in california you did go to them in california it is as if you say well if they'd been in texas we had to go to texas and therefore walden doesn't go there but it doesn't necessarily what we're looking at here is that to harm us to rise out of the context that your client creates with the forms state it must arise from harm that they likely know will be suffered in the for state will problem is that there is no place where the harm would have suffered except in california if you are going to have intentionally done what they suggest you three points the first was it must arise out of context that the defendant himself creates with the form state which i'm understanding you to say we didn't do we were just talking to them not the form state but then in understanding how i were praia that that premise i have to say that it causes harm defendant knows is likely to be suffered in the form state well frankly i don't know where the form of the harm couldn't have been done except in the form states must arise from contacts with the form stated self and not with persons who reside there i'm striking out all of the other contacts you would have made i ask him the very question i said if this deals with only nondisclosure agreements and service agreements with third parties are we out he said yes so i'll strike that the third is well those are the two points and so therefore i'm thinking walden here applies even though you're saying we wouldn't have gone there if decks were there every contract is we wouldn't go there if that company didn't live there but you were aiming at california your honor i i agree with your last statement that every contract can be characterized as we wouldn't have gone there if the defendant didn't or if the plaintiff didn't occupy that space in that form which is the exact point of walden because if you're if you're on if we fall into that logical trap then we will always find jurisdiction in the form in which the plaintiffs resides if there's if there's a situation where and if that it wouldn't if that's  only where they reside but they did business every other place but in this particular matter they didn't do business in any other place and you specifically access their computers just i'm in california t what you had to do we aimed we aimed our conduct a dex wherever they were located your honor i think the principle of walden is that if you cannot the stablish form connections other than the fact that the plaintiff happens to reside know he was in atlanta to catch a connecting flight but he wasn't going to spend ninety thousand dollars in atlanta airport he was going to take it back to nevada where he's going to spend it is house but here injury was using some facilities some get the product you wanted unless you use those facilities corkey just in the state court i mean in the lower court we did and that was before axiom came out correct right so you're dealing with ninth circuit law being washington sho which was basically reversed by yes wild it right it's exactly right i think that the holding of washington shoe tells us a lot about whether we can apply jurisdiction consistent with the  process clause by simply saying well was the effect of your conduct felt in california by the plaintiffs because that was the holding of the ninth circuit in washington shoe a ridiculous holding and it was and it was rejected who was the trial judge who got reversed by then and said it was me emphasizing our bad we were on let me let me go to the third point yes you're on the third point you bear the burden the exercise of jurisdiction must comport with fair play and substantial justice is there any evidence in this record about that in fact i don't even find any argument from you that it would on reasonable or that it would not comport with fair play and substantial justice in these briefs your honor that's because we presume that we would never get to that spot because of the what we believe to be fo you're however so if i don't agree with you on the first point you just lose i would i would not agree with that your honor i what i would have been evidence and there i will say i will say this though certainly from the facts that have been established in this case to suggest that a company that has no employees no facilities no equipment no assets no bank accounts no no nothing in this forum is can be hailed into this jurisdiction for conduct that took away would be a great argument if you'd ever made it before now but i'm looking at the record and that's all i can look at and he's going to stand up and say he can argue that hearing never made it before so i think all my question only goes to the sole question as if i don't agree with you as to points one and two and you lose i disagree that your honor i'm s the netherlands conducting its activities in the netherlands conducting its activities in europe soley with the concept of conduct of servicing its clients in the netherlands requiring some form connections only because the decks had problems and needed us to allow it to service us from the united states because it chose to be here would not be an exercise of jurisdiction consistent with the constitution and i thank you for your time thank you very much  submitted and court thinks counsel for their argument