suing manufacturing company in the first district and combined insurance company of america first the circuit court ignored that the parties dispute had a legitimate and substantial relationship to the on one second  and other personnel to remain heights illinois offices to integrate the software with women heights operating systems but after numerous delays mr bines and failed attempts to deliver what they promise women had finally had to pull the plug on the there's legitimate and substantial ation ship whether he you know whether he was right or wrong and how we cannot on those factors you know i disagree with him but i think the bigger issue is one thing he didn't recognize him and substantial relationship which w here i think that the whole purpose is to look at the facts and circumstances of this particular case and to say that this is an illinois dispute whether or not to your court babysitting it well you know all this is on a yes but it's not it was not under consideration at the time of trial court's decision was rendered none of the actions in new york could proceed so you know he's willing to do the trial court dismissed  motion could actually proceed furthermore the trial court abused its discretion in failing told the findings to the burden of establishing additional grounds demonstrating demonstrating why the action could not proceed in federal court and indicated that he there was no diversity of sedition ships of the court had no subject matter section the next day before the court had just actually dismissed that case they section is not to incite a foot race to the courthouse that really has no bearing on the emails to sort out the point the bigger issue is that we were first married action had not been dismissed on december fourth the local forum which was sort of alluded to basically sort of depends on the outcome of the new york if depending on how the court decides plaintiff's claims claims times new york farm women might be it please the court my name is john mcentee i'm appearing here pro hockey chaser my name is not on the papers for the purpose so two six one nine eight three is to avoid the picket of litigation and the supreme court staley said that any analysis by the trial court should be directed towards that purpose the circuit court in this case recognized that it had discretion unlike the circuit court and staley alloys the relevant facts applied to the president from this court the we have on two successive one year periods they expended our license agreement and so what we sued for is for the two extensions each of which is about nineteen thousand dollars and change so that forty great wood city california secondly council indicated the software is the limit in illinois in fact the agreement itself the ns license agreement on page two the it was two methods of delivery one can to the end user license agreement and the statement were simply for engineering services to supplement their own engineers that were working on the case those people working in c s headquarters and i land here in new york  court the court specifically found that the trial court was a error when it found it had no discretion at all in determining the motion to dismiss the facts and state in this case i distinguish provide for the occasion of california law in connection with this and use a license agreement and with respect to the statement work it's neutral and that's an important factor because obviously this court is very the new york new york course again that ninety percent of our claim in this case is under the statement of work which is involved the application of new york for and again instead most of the people ok but the people are actually doing the coding apparently in new york you know most and frankly a little bit of it is is actually done this story in india frankly that's where the big dollar centers but the interesting part about this is when you're actually doing the coding w under the statement so just to conclude if you're honest you know a reversal in this case would do two things one it would likely cause unnecessary expense because a duplicate of litigation but also have a risk of inconsistent verdicts we have t well yes but your honor that there's also an appeals process and a court may very well say well we're going to let this action continue because we don't know whether that education be state or  isn't this isn't going to dispute this but i mean dependence came into illinois created this entire mess and then ran back to new york defendants came to illinois to intervene to protect the statement of court contemplated performance and illinois and that is the entire relation of this dispute you know it all stems from events that occurred in illinois  if you look closely at that which is appears in the supplemental connex on page twenty four the court denied our motion to dismiss the third new york action on a technicality specifically the stipulation the plaintiffs entered and here they did not do that and finally i would just like to add that there is no evidence of taxation harassment on the part of the hard defendants came into town i created the basis for this lawsuit and then when immediately back to new york and filed suit against women h