recruited to take a position with a country that was based in qatar the people who own the company engage the services of a person by the name of donald jordan who submitted an affidavit in this case and upon whose half a day but the motion to dismiss was primarily based mr jordan is a licensed attorney in state of michigan and has been a member in good standing since one thousand nine hundred four maine's an attorney let's just practice in state in michigan and it was no coincidence that mr jordan was selected to do the recruitment of my client mr b do for the venture why don't they that why do you say it was no coincidence that there are some at various background there or your honor i believe it has everything to do with the fact that michigan is  outside of the middle east one of the two in this country cities that has the largest concentration of arab americans again outside of the middle east it's a particularly well  developed community of arab americans one of the earliest one of the thanks to the automotive industry one of the earliest places where americans came to settle and where they have advanced to the highest to the highest  culture to the middle east the place that you want to do that is the state of michigan detroit where the american arab chamber of commerce is headquartered in located which is the oldest and largest chamber of commerce of its type and mr be doing this for chairman of that organization and i won't go through the detail of his resume it's all been set forth in the brief as to what his background  h his background in the community is in and was and why what to me i would look for someone like him in the state of michigan even though if that's the case really this is a dispute over whether the long arm staff from michigan applies it gets into the due process argument and what say you to the argument that the issues involved in this controversy have  in that the the test requires that the defendant act in the state of michigan i think we can demonstrate that the defendant did act in the state of michigan and that they cause the consequence of the inform state in several where's mr jordan lived there did business there right correct and then and he he discussed this job with your client that's correct your honor and your client as i understand it they negotiated a deal but that never came into probation no your honor it did come into fruition there was a dispute over when he was supposed to report right and my client and my client called it off my client ultimately reported under the terms of the agreement that he negotiated with mr jordan in the state of michigan and i'm prepared to  rise and which ones did not yes your honor his absence from the state of michigan which is an act in which is an action or a consequence is felt in michigan the fact that qatari company to revoke the exit visa of mr beydoun this is the purposeful imprisonment of somebody to extort money from him that he didn't owe them and using the leverage that he has leverage that they have as a result of that and what they've what they've done is they've used the effort david of mr jordan who himself is subject to the same profile the law you are dismissing is complaint and denying him access to our courts on the basis of mr jordan's jordan's affidavit which has not been subjected to cross examination where we cannot ask him are you being threatened with revocation of your exit permit as a as a means to induce you to provide the affidavit that you provided and that's the problem with dismissing the case with you know the zero zero discovery into these issues it seems to me that at the very least the court should be looking at a order of remain and to provide us with the opportunity to conduct discovery on the issues that right now we are entirely reliant upon untested virulence in an affidavit from somebody who obviously knows the situation that mr b doing went through and and knows the situation of thousands of immigrant workers who are still held captive in in in qatar and this court can take traditional notice of the results of the fall of the application of to follow a law in this case and i don't believe that this country should be bound by the strict application of a law that permits in an employer not a government body not a government not a government agency but an employer to revoke someone's right to leave the jurisdiction once they've decided in that will situation that they no longer wish to alan i'm interested in the balance of your answer to judge rice's interesting question if you could take those peters answer his question in your first answer was his absence is absent shriner so what else  claim itself cannot establish a person or stick i would i think that the problem of the test that i was dealing with was the first prong of the test which requires a consequence in michigan that is one of many consequences another your honor would be to answer my question though the derivative of the answer is yes your honor but it is also a consequence of the activities that that occurred that we're talking about that establish personal jurisdiction of the very activities of the the the the recruitment the order that he had what we're talking about here are things that were the consequences that occurred here were consequences that were felt in michigan certainly mr vance but that's not the question were there any torts committed in the state of michigan if so what were those towards the misrepresentation that the misrepresentations that were made by mr jordan about that alleged in the complaint there was a misrepresentation and the state of michigan yes your honor the the  the fact of the matter is again the investigation that occurred after the dispute between mr b doon and his employer occurred entirely in michigan morning my name is john king the apple e's are all middle eastern businesses and middle eastern individuals mostly from qatar let me ask you this isn't the appellant or the plaintive in the court below required to establish personal jurisdiction over each person's food yes that's absolutely correct and hasn't there been a lumping together of everyone's food under it indeed you are correct your honor we make that point in our brief that all or almost all but but as i recall all of the arguments are directed towards wan not the other two businesses or the four individuals who are also defendants in this matter diverge you go thank you this is a case about personal jurisdiction that's all that this case is about the district court correctly held that exercising jurisdiction in this case over those seven defendants would not satisfy the constitutional due process concerns that arise from the vast case law in this area this is not a michigan long arm statute case and more specifically and i'll get into these as the court desires that the recruitment that want to ny is recruitment of a michigan citizen for a job that involved running a business in the middle east and only running a business in the middle east did not demonstrate any intention to form ongoing substantial contact with the state of michigan two that the claims did not arise from conduct in michigan but instead  searching to find any suggestion of that in any of the papers below the discussion that i'm aware of from the affidavits there is some dispute i'm not suggesting otherwise between mr jordan and mr be doone involves where they met the issue was in the demise of the business in mr b dunes view it was occasioned by the economics of two thousand and eight two thousand and nine in our clients view it was occasioned by the mismanagement of the company by mr whichever of those two assertions is correct the entire dispute arises from that set of facts and then what happens when there's litigation in culture between the seven defendants  ollie's and mr beeton that's what this dispute is about the fact that mr jordan travel to michigan that there was communication between carter and michigan in order for mr b doomed to ultimately to arrive in counter is of no jurisdictional importance or no particular jurisdiction importance i believe is the standard that this court has employed in for example the euro glass case  the third the third standard or the third party or rather is whether or not the exercise of jurisdiction here would be reasonable the court concluded that it would not be it in less than a further questions all briefly discuss each of those points on the purposeful velleman side but i think if you look at all of the cases all of the decisions by this court all of the book decisions below they all make the same point in order for there to be purposeful of ailment t context must be ongoing it must be continuous it must be far reaching or it must be substantial it cannot be random attenuated refer to it as and nothing about this case even remotely shows ongoing continuous activity that's true from the defendants themselves that's true from the business and that's true as i mentioned a moment ago about the dispute at the risk of offending my colleagues i believe the paramount issue is certainly that problem of course is the arising from problem the test in this court's community trust decision is whether the defendant's contacts relate to the operative facts and the nature of the controversy is th pattern at all this is a dispute that relates only to how mr b doon ran the business in cutter i think the arguments and there are many cases including some district court cases where similar to our facts there are employed disputes where the conduct takes place overseas in the courts of hell no personal jurisdiction under those circumstances i think b p but for tasks that mr al is referring to is cited in their brief and that comes from a district court case a lot overseas be arye it i think it's in our view safe to say that that is a far over broad reading of the case to suggest that there is a but for test that simply says but for the fact that mr beydoun came from michigan there is personal jurisdiction in this case that what the appellants are really suggesting is no matter how tenuous the conduct get back whether it doesn't really relate to the controversy at all there could be jurisdiction perhaps not two years perhaps not five years ten years after mr b doing arrives in culture that's not the law and i think that tortured reading of cut a lot of it was also not consistent with the facts of the case that they cite kettle on it was a case which involved the michigan plaintiffs who purchased a travel package from a hotel in i believe nevada it was marketed through an airline i believe american airlines and the whole point the whole thrust of the business activity was to bring a resident of in this case michigan but really bring out of state residents to nevada in the plaintiff has been injured in the hotel room the court said but for the act of more getting in michigan the point of never would have been there never would have been injured i think we can all get that that's not our facts that direct relationship between a targeted marketing of individuals out of state to bring them in state that's the but for analysis that the district court applied and cuddle on up again that's not our fact pattern and that there's no connection between what happened other than mr jordan showing up choice to discharge you know to terminate this to do nor to affect government intervention to retain him in the country that sort of thing i don't think there's you know of any i don't any activity by jordan beyond the starbucks meeting or whatever where it where that meeting took place i don't i know there are facts in the record showing mr jordan's role in the selection process i  don't recall any facts to suggest mr jordan had anything to do with never acted in qatar but he wasn't guitar he was in fact to get in qatar at the time of the recruitment back in two thousand and seven  i'm aware of facts suggesting that this that he had any involvement or any material involvement certainly in the dispute between mr p dune and in his employ and i argument that was made below in fact it's an argument that is inconsistent with how i view the facts that were argued below i think the point that the appellant's are we're trying to make here is it isn't sufficient that we reached out that what's a new year reached out to michigan to grab someone and bring them back then perhaps it's significant that we reached out to the market in detroit and reached out and then to michigan or to bring somebody back and that's simply number one not the facts of this case the facts are clear from the affidavits and i think the undisputed facts that and certainly for mr me dus version of how the point came to be  that he was selected and blessed by the relevant people in qatar before mr jordan even reached out to him and that in fact jordan traveled after negotiations traveled to michigan and met at a starbucks where they hammered out at least a part of the deal i do submit though even if the facts were different even if somehow what's in here we're looking for someone anyone in the michigan area which again is not the fact that are still that fact would not be of any jurisdiction reports here because it's a distinction without a difference the point of all of the cases in this area as we understand them is if that if what is happening is bringing someone to operate a business in qatar and the dispute arises out of that as as i believe the facts from the show it does that doesn't establish personal jurisdiction here i think the the final point that the final of the  reasonableness pronto i won't spend much time on that unless there are any questions that the cases do accord particular deference to overseas entities and in light of the unique burdens placed on someone who has to defend themselves overseas that's a pretty clear tenet of of the cases and in this case that there was is a said no purposeful of ailment there's simply no way to conclude that the district court was incorrect in deciding that this dispute did not arise from the contact with michigan and in any event it would be a reasonable given the burden that would be imposed on  argue that the conclusion that it's distinguishable is based entirely upon the view that the court has of where where the damages were where the damages occurred worst of the the worst of the torch that were committed here were were there but we can also avoid the fact that what happened here was also tortious we have it happening in two different places we have we have investigators being dispatched over here not only to get private facts and invade his privacy and his wife's privacy in the privacy of his children who had to endure the  how he had stolen money from these investigators that were dispatched from cutter we have to deal with the defamation that occurred over here and that is something that is  man of this debate is prominence that is an issue that is i think vital to this case i think that is where the jurisdiction the personal jurisdiction attaches here and the fact that there was tortious activity occurring in two different locations doesn't preclude the fact that personal jurisdiction can attach from that from that action and the fact that we can establish it through first first hand first hand knowledge is simply a function of the fact that we've been denied the right to discovery here we have a foreign country or foreign foreign entity that is being given preference or deference over someone who is a united states citizen and a to submit affidavit your honor but many of the people that were contacted have relatives and family in qatar and are not going to voluntarily submit themselves to submit an affidavit it was a act of courage for m do what he did giving me the billeted to subpoena people for a sworn deposition and put them under oath is what would allow me to establish the facts that i believe that my client is now being precluded from establishing so the limited the limited remain and that the court could order could simply be to allow me the opportunity to discover what i know to be true what i have a good faith belief to be true based upon  necessarily hearsay because they're the statement that mr mustafa who was an employee he of what's in the is a statement against a party interest question is where is he in the company hierarchy and can those statements bind the company i can't i can't find that out i can't ask to get the sworn testimony that i need to establish that fact unless i'm given the ability to conduct that simple discovery into that insular issue and with with the the little time that i have remaining i can tell you that mr jordan did make a statement to the cuts prosecutor i believe it was a false statement i've not had the opportunity to cross examine mr jordan about his false statements to the contrary prosecutor why because it discovery has been denied that false statement to the contrary prosecutor was again it occurred in qatar understand that but i can't i can't delve into his involvement until i have the opportunity to do that discovery i suppose the natural question is where would that discovery take place w lots of it needs to take place in cutter there are fewer flights today that need metropolitan detroit airport to qatar if i have to go to qatar to conduct discovery i would and i would certainly i would certainly do that i've i've conducted depositions in foreign countries can so concerned whether you can get there or not but the site it's for this discovery needs to take place in terms of the jurisdiction i believe that we have the largest law firm in the world that conducts litigation international litigation throughout the world we i believe that that is something that witnesses might be quite quite a few witnesses might be there but mr mr jordan still does travel to the united states and i believe that we have the ability we have the ability to compel his deposition many of the arguments about needed discovery difficulty getting witnesses and the like were raised before the because there was no oral argument in this case your honor i think i've been involved in the case for four years written right i peep i've been involved in this case free for a week i don't know exactly what what the proceedings were below other than what i've been able to read through the docketing statements and in the written submissions in the written submissions here was there a specific i believe there were subpoenas that were issued and there was a motion of wash i do believe that that