of whole number of cases ruling the other way it's pretty well know that we're on the look we're going to the great state of nevada and we are it's also the ninth circuit and so i think we need to look at this case on its facts sorts lack of facts its lack of evidence and also its lack of the plaintiffs from a licensed broker in arizona and i want to become a licensed broker in nevada what do i have to do you have to be licensed in your home state and apply for a license in nevada i can not require c e s from that arizona person so i like block like a lot situation my point is so how are you protecting consumers i mean if you automatically become a licensed real estate broker in nevada if you're a licensed real estate broker someplace else  what's what's the point in terms of consumer protection you have to have a nevada person countersign i think you've already put your finger on it your honor and that is that a person is tested on nevada law that nevada agent is required to keep continuing education on nevada law so when when you get your auto policy and you write it with your friends from arizona that nonresident producer that nonresident producer is not necessarily zero it's oh it's nevada regulation it's in the record that's on page twenty five of your brief thank you your honor cantor slanging agent has to maintain complete records of the cancer signature transaction meaning daily report and say hey man i don't understand this coverage on my under insured motorists i don't understand the waiver can you explain it to me he doesn't have to be on hold waiting for the arizona producer to get back to him he can walk right in the office now your arizona agent your honor he can negotiate or she can negotiate any commission that they want with big insurance company there's nothing in the record that shows that that commission is reduced in any way shape or form eight three hundred the arizona nonresident agent might get ten percent they might get twelve percent they might get seven percent of whatever they negotiate with big insurance company also we have five adverse decisions in a row here florida of south dakota virgin islands for rico and of course the trial court here in nevada where i'm going the other way what's wrong with any of those five decisions well first first of all gone are all of those counter signature laws are different than nevada's countersink significant way well in florida for example i think the nonresident aid actually had to physically go into florida with the resident agent and i don't know assess the risk or something that it was a much more of a burden some statute than ours is but our statute specifically allows nonresident agent to freely do their business end of that and that nonresident agent doesn't pay a nickel to the resident agent it's statute has been on the books for thirty five years that there's fifteen thousand not resident producers in two thousand and three and of that and now the numbers have gone up is that also explain the south dakota decision the virgin islands decision the puerto r well your honor i can't speak to all the nuances of each one of their laws but i know like in the puerto rico case for instance they tried to justify that case based on their rational basis was that they needed a residence that's that's not our position i put our honor you've got your own case that my circuit case on the masters and pilots where you found that there wasn't a burden and that was a case where there actually was a different theme for nonresidents versus residents this is actually on its face doesn't bur provision involving consumer protection benefits the policyholder and so many ways several ways a local point of contact a source of advice a system of plants process to protect them from unqualified agents in other states  requiring local license agents who are residents to sign on policies of greater assurance they were supposed reputable and qualified services also benefits by having a record of all transactions now you haven't listed in here the requirement that you told us about five minutes ago where they go through what's happening and measure it against that a law and make sure that it's all you know all fits with the i don't log again give me the section that you say requires them to do that in this countersuit your process becomes responsible they'd better check that policy because they're on the hook illegally and also with the insurance commissioner if something goes wrong with that insurance my auto insurance also you've set up this argument very clearly why from requiring any individual to state for a license or examine to qualify for the license the provision that he refers to which is not briefed by them at all and any of their briefs is fifteen u s c section six seven five one it's called ten which i confess i have not read i was looking for some responsibility as a judge granted it was on the part of the local agents to perform some substantive service on behalf of the consumers and i were told that if i look at six eighty eight for ten i'm going to this is this a burden which it clearly is secretly treats nonresident transactions differently the resident trend right then is that substantially justified in may and in doing that analysis you look at their rationale coupled with other less discriminatory means to achieve the same what i mean this is seems to be part of their rationale there's not just a local guy taking five percent off the top and going to the casino there's somebody who's familiar with local law looking at the transaction measuring against local law and ensuring that it's appropriate and accurate your honor there's no reason why non resident can't do the exact same thing and piper the supreme court said exactly that there's no reason why it is that what sixty four ten cents in the course is an obligation on the local person to measure this against local law that's the representation that it i have read it a while they say i'll you know what i don't know but i'll take the point i'll take the point that it imposes the obligation on my what it says it doesn't matter because you can impose the same obligation on the nonresident if that means that presupposes that the nonresident is intimately familiar with the laws of nevada regarding these issues your honor pike point is not necessarily sol and so we're saying that for consumer protection purposes we're making sure you run it through a local person who is from there it's like lawyers from different states your honor piper for even the bernard torch increase that came out of the united states virgin islands all three cases united states state supreme court rejects exactly this theory there is no basis in this you if the state of california says that the requirement for practicing law here is that everyone needs to take the bar they can require everyone to take the bar but you have to become familiar with california law but you have to treat residents and nonresidents differently there is a less discriminatory means all the objectives outlined by the state and that is you can require the nonresident to sit directly for licensure in fact in florida and one of the cases you cited that relates to this body of litigation there were two classes of provisions that were struck down in the one class a surplus lines category that state of florida now requires non residents who want that license to sit for a license or license or exam in the state of florida to qualify for that license there is no reason why the state of nevada can impose all the regulatory requirements on our resonation there is no reason why the state of nevada cannot require a nonresident to sit for the exact same licensure exam that the residence is for effect the supreme court jurisprudence in this context requires  i just looked it fortuned again i very candidly when i read the brief i kind of research this because it didn't hit me and now i'm listening to counsel counsel says something about the dysphoric and requires a comparison of the contract and the terms problems arising between agents and customers and is answerable to the reason for complaints problem for leading the policies which is countersigned now the nonresident agent has the same duty yes sir as far as i know and i would go back and check that still what i always said is even though you just countersigned you have to have the duties under the policy well the agent can't write it even though he hasn't taken the test unless he's responsible to the nation so how does that affect your analysis of both of them have the same duties let's assume that there's no basis for the distributed which go back to the basic privilege in immunity analysis is that correct yes sir and if you look at the core provision the court statutory provisions that we challenge  sixty eight section three hundred and some parts five they actually require that if the countersign agent is going to do any post sale activities or conduct they have to separately contract for that it is not a compass by the counter signature fifty and so the privileges or immunities that one nonresident resident should have the same opportunities as that right under paper quote a state must accord residents and i residence equal treatment friedman says the same thing bachmann says the object of the cost is to place the citizens of each state upon the same once you've established the standing then you separately evaluate this particular claim but we kind of valuating same kind of things aren't we witness triple what's the burden on risk well you know they've got this new agent that they've lined up and they're now really it within the well there's a couple things in order to place a policy for any particular insurance company you have to be appointed by that company by the state of nevada and so whether or not the nevada member of this firm is or is not appointed for any given contract would have to be evaluated each and every case but it still inserts a step into the process that no resident agent has to go through if you take that same transaction if it's the residence client the resident is is undertaking the transaction they don't have to determine whether or not you're saying this statute is not in her depositions that this is cost her money it's true that she's a soured employee it's also true under the record that she is entitled to bonuses and those bonuses are based in part on the performance of her office her part of the agency she faces at a minimum under harris a concrete risk of harm economically but there are also administrative burdens that are imposed on these transactions that are not imposed on transactions that are done outside the state of nevada she testifies over and over again in her deposition that she and her staff go out to find the counter signing agent to ensure that requirement so even though that the you have to admit financial burden is a little bit lose because we've never done all we know is that the employer including her deposition she's not too sure how the player does it but because she's responsible to be the rainmaker isn't directly tied to premium generation from her deposition item her particular star is not directly tied to premium generation the clearly agents and brokers are producers their job is to produce business and it's clear in her deposition elsewhere that there's a financial harm but there's also the burden of having to deal with the statute itself there's another point in this is that there's nothing in the record according to palace council arguing about who pays these under the statute itself  transactions for such that the nonresident gets the resident gets at least that amount equal to five percent of the premium in this respect us deposition she makes clear that this comes out of the a b de portion of her portion of the commission on the transaction but there's another point under the state's own rules for most policies especially the ones identified by council auto insurance for example there are filed rates those rates include commission was filed with the state you can't deviate from that there's no difference on whether resident or nonresident is involved in the placement in terms of the overall amount of the commission that the insurers are entitled to pay under those filed rates clinton and the rate that is not in the record but it is a matter of statutory law in nevada and i'm responding to the point  t it's not in the record i'm now looking at sixty eighty eight for ten five all commissions on property and casualty insurance which was sold by an agent or broker who is not licensed in nevada and which covers a risk located in nevada must be paid to are this is for a not placement that's made by someone who is not licensed by the state of nevada at all and under nevada law i believe that they are not licensed not licensed in any way so regardless of residency they're not licensed by the state of nevada and under nevada law at least at the time this provision was effectuated my understanding is again not in the record that you would be entitled to receive any commission at all because otherwise you'd be gauging and unlicensed activities which are required to be license kickback by the nevada eight there's nothing unfortunate says that the the licensed broker in nevada has to examine the legality of the transaction but i believe that's the common practice c sixty seven fifty one states must award licenses to insurance producers of other states on a reciprocal basis and cannot place additional restrictions on that producer except section three twenty one five specifically before the trial court your honor it is that's my understanding i did not present it but my understanding is it is in the record before the trial court and therefore it should be before this court give me the was in a motion for reconsideration for this record yes your honor and that's congress infringing on the privileges and immunities ok and it is for the counsel just briefly your honor getting back to the burden question in order to force for this statute to burden the nonresident producer in your circuit it has to be a genuinely significant deprivation so much as a denial of the basic what you have is trial court thing you know the statute looks unfair to me on its face and and it's not discriminatory on its face therefore real plaintiffs need to come forward with real evidence and prove you know bring i'm sworn declaration says you know people are losing money on this thing but when he's deposed he doesn't know one nonresident producers name he doesn't know them personally he has no personal knowledge that anybody's lost a nickel because of the statute statutes on the books thirty five years fifteen thousand nonresident producers then in the next year they go up seventeen percent while the nevada producers go up three percent so if we're trying to is protect protectionist legislation it's not working very well is this legislation is directly involves the gecko i soon i mean on the gecko gecko would be