first one involves whether there is or is not jurisdiction in this case the second one is what is the proper choice of law whether california or washington along with govern this case the third issue of law is whether or not even if washington long were to govern in this case whether the washington supreme court would adopt and follow the inevitable disclosure and got if time permits i have some other issues such as california on july fourteenth he immediately started working for apply up the record is clear as dr just moved affidavit shows that he immediately put up his house for sale and he took his family down to issues i believe that would be substantial evidence but you know the fact is lam has the burden on this issue they have to prove jurisdiction based on the record before you i think it's incontrovertibly all that he had changed his domi e he was living and working in california with an intent to remain there if that is true that is the end of this case why did he answer news and the first complaint in him i think the proof of the putting is he's living and working in california for ten days before the suits filed his house is put out for sale his family unit goes down there and house hunting trips both his wife and his kids and those facts are contested in the record and so i think if you look at the evidence as a whole it's clear that there is no subject matter jurisdiction at the time the case is filed ten days later i'd like to turn briefly if i could to the choice of law issue this again i think  produced after the judge had ruled that washington law will apply shows that that standard form also has california law as a choice of law between these parties so from the only claim here again this is not junk she must be dissolved in the case must be dismissed what's interesting is they say well he lived and worked in washington and there is some truth to that i met however they supplied an interesting declaration i can find the site if necessary where they somebody from lamp totaled up all of his trips to california and where he went elsewhere if you add that up you'll see that in two thousand and four i think more than a third at this time i think it was twenty one or so trips were from portland the airport right across from vancouver washington where his house was down to san jose where lam's headquarters are in fremont and the full full if you add up the days i think  six days so as he sat in one of his declarations three and a half days of the week he was usually working in california then it's interesting if you fast forward to the end of the relationship lam still a practical problem yes it's a huge problem for him it's my understanding that if this injunction were dissolved today he could go back to working in his chosen field which he had done by the way before lamb which is working in the di presented to the washington supreme court however what we do know is that for the last twenty years or so we have not found and counsel for lamb has apparently not found a single new state adopting the doctrine of inevitable disclosure to the contrary there's been about five or six states that we cite in our brief where that's been a new issue they've all rejected it now washington what would it do the most recent opinion that we have found from washington is this i'm not sure i'm pronouncing it right lambert yoli case it was decided by the state supreme court late last year nine zero opinion and the issue there was on the cover that not to compete for years i think there's been cases going both ways about if you hire somebody and then later require them to sign a couple that not to compete as are valid considerations for that some court say continued employment is enough others say no you have to give them a promotion or additional salary or something in the way of consideration the washington court adopted the idea that employee mobility here is the key because they rejected the doctrine that just continued employment was adequate consideration for a couple not to compete once you've already been hired so i think that is very telling about what a washington court with do and if a disclosure there's a couple of points one if you go back to the pepsi co case which is i think the seminal case in area you'll find that there was a lack of tand there and that was the key issue or one of the key issues at least for the district court's decision make a legal determination based upon just unit facts that were weighed and resolved by the file judge before below for the purposes of least of the preliminary injunction now with respect was evident with respect to the appropriate standard of review that gap is and by the way we agree with sparling case the sparkling case cited by those of us is that the court would start as a legal matter and follow the law of washington spyder stage for the legal determination but after that the court must then look at facts and the two additional cases and this is fairly basic law the shannon bail five versus the advantage to seventy feds third one to zero seven which points out that after the purely legal question of sort of selecting the correct choice of wall rule you then apply the rule to the facts of the case which is a mix question of facts and law and the deferen the states like pennsylvania that went out of its way to avoid the word inevitable but came to the same result the what we're talking about isn't just inevitable dispose of but threatens misappropriation where the judge believes in this order found that there is threatened california ran a significant risk of counter of having california law reach a different result to washington with the question you asked and because of that six significant risk how can there possibly need unless the district judge a contract not before the court and efforts to bring it before the court were denied and that those references stricken because some other people had contracts but even if there were a contract the interest of justice under the spiralling case and the application tests now there was not a spider staging based motion specifically for this judge to rule upon to enumerate those with respect to a choice of law motion to dismiss at that time there was however an order  ninth the defendant's motion to dismiss on this case which also made rulings with respect to the a political law and the appropriate law and the reference on the motion to dismiss i do not have off the employed up here he's now employed in california the place where the injury occurred we've just gone over the place where the conduct causing the injury occurred i think we're in a sense also going over it could very well take place in california could very well take place on the road the list in japan is going i do not know if he's taking trips to washington with me i posit that there's a different reason why the injury occurs in washington because it wasn't just a transfusion plant in washington he was employed at the vancouver operation supervising employees that hoover for four years and so the injury to the operation for all the what's lammas the california thomas company it's an injury to their operation in washington and their employment their operational twenty six employees in vancouver to the after i said i understand their argument relationship of any between the parties is centered seems to be centered now in california and earlier time with respect to the earlier employer you might be a member of are you washington ok certainly he was employed in washington affidavit of service that establishes that he stated that was his residence on the day he was served he may now say something different although he admitted that in the answer to the first complaint he was back there in august signing a declaration which is in the person who's claiming to have moved comes forth and gets their burden to show that they have moved the most closely controlling case is the carter case where someone attempted to sue some someone had been in california moved to colorado intended to leave colorado spent intervening weeks in the vatican spent time house hunting in california with the intent to stay in california and in the carter case they concluded he was not yet transferred still a colorado resident and shelley had both the new vested interest and the intent to stay there the colorado residence was still his domicile for the purposes of diversity jurisdiction now to the extent that they c that there are different facts yes they can raise distinction in a time this is never been submitted to a fact finding court to balance those facts there are sufficient facts on the record to establish jurisdiction as was done in this case with respect to  d i can come back to both the california issue course of conduct and given the testimony of dr graves and of the other individuals of the fifth thirteen decorations before the court of its exact technical nature of the material t court found threatened disclosure it also found it would be inevitable he would disclose but found threatened disclosure which is an act which can be dealt with by preliminary injunction under either california showing that although california rejected the term inevitable disclosure that california's uniform trade secret act would not support the collimator injunction that was appropriately granted by this district court after wayne the factors if i may continue your honor there is in the brief statement that california's uniform face secret act is identical to washington and contains the same language that already has been brought to the court's attention trial court's findings with respect to threatened misappropriation of trade secrets are on the record it would not be necessary or into the case with the substantial risk to the party to the cla might find has not been yet brought to this course of full development so make the determination of california versus washington law it would not be necessary to vacate the appropriately issued plumeri injunction in that context or thank you for the question the court specifically says lam research argues the motion the transfer would result in substantial prejudice to it because it's can amount to the most into this mess and given california's stated public policy let me resident of washington that history here i don't deny that but you know again they have the burden on jurisdiction if you look at the facts as well full here they do not meet their burden of showing diversity of citizenship so there's no jurisdiction testified under oath that lam initially told him that they just didn't work want him to work on this product for nine months where wavey on that we need immediate relief now desperately the other thing that's important here is when i said sixteen months since he's been gone and under in shanksville for eleven months simple arithmetic would suggest for five months he was working at applied and there was no injunction including for two months on the products of the issue  they have never amended their complaint they have never alleged they have never even intimated that he has used or disclosed a single trade secret that to me is very telling on this