and that's not disputed when defendant suggested that we refile this case in mexico we immediately said ok wait so you have been convicted of money laundering from mexico and we went through pacer and we found a series of orders that you referred to saying you cannot go to mexico since then defendant has offered the series of suggestions about how we might have a remote trial there st of all definitive mit's he doesn't know if quote whether his personal attendance emotes to appear in person in mexico or whether alternatives to personal appearance may be available there was no expert testimony either as to availability or mexican law most concerning your honour's was the district court didn't ask these questions why are we been in over backwards to go around these orders said it just trying the case here the court did not allow us to ask these questions and we got a scheduling conference that lasted about two minutes and we were cut off and a few days later  that court was assigned a case with ninety six dollars defendants in which we appeared along with half of the houston bar and a few days later from that our case was dismissed and so we concede that the judge in his order accurately correctly set forth the analytical framework for for not convenience but he failed to resolve significant conflicts in the record your honors those are not my words those are the words of this court another panel twenty five years ago addressing a virtually identical  from the same district judge this court reversed the order noting that it was it was quite brief it was actually quite longer than our order in fact a few years before that another panel had reversed an almost identical order that the st case i referred to was c t f the intercontinental but prior to that judge smith and a painstaking factors and yet there was a rd case in your views of the appropriate remedy in this case three mandan requiring the district judge to go through the proper analysis that in this catalog is raytheon v h i l h and that was several years later and at that point in reverse scene an almost identical order by the same district judge the panel noted that incentive expanding the analysis it was now down to two paragraphs your honour's we're down to one paragraph now the district judge has similarly in all the the other cases mixed the public and private factors and omitted factors and failed completely to balance or even cite any of the evidence on the record as supporting jury trial in this form including these orders that we discussed to from these other judges  clearly this judge he doesn't like to apply these factors but to affirm this order it would it would vitiate these three previous opinions burden to show an adequate and available form and in the brief we cited there's a there's an interesting case in the th circuit that addresses what happens when there's no evidence of an available forum and there's just this consent non consent and that's that these stryker case and i would encourage the court to to consider that it's  the two of the previous cases that this court is dressed with this judge paris and raytheon judge judge smith also said you know what what what one of one of them said we need not reached that issue and the other said well it wouldn't solve it the other gulf problems anyway but were put skeptical that they could that there was anything supporting in the level of sufficient detail those those two initial factors even though you know mexico has great courts and we don't doubt that in almost all cases but you just this is this is so minimal this is the extreme and then i would just consolidate the most important of the next factors and then they kind of blend together but access to proof and that compulsory witnesses and cause of other witnesses it's the live testimony where litigators cannot compel personal attendance in person and may be forced to try cases on deposition would create a condition not satisfactory to litigants and so it's  have to look at our our complaint and we're suing this defendant individually he is in both especially and mexican law but in any in any trial i mean this is an oral contract examination that when witness is essential there are two other people know you're on and this is absolutely a texas law case and you make that was a digression that i don't think was a political but thank you for asking that and we were dressing that the witness the witness factors the two other witnesses f b i agents there's no way that a mexican judge and this is you know based on what we know in judicial notice cited in the brief everything but there they haven't put any evidence of any weight that we could  agents to testify in mexico and that's it and this is a simple is case you can possibly have been sworn account case in texas and it's just a bill and that's attached to our complaint so that's not really an issue it's in texas and if i you know jury views don't matter i'd like to skip it and just address that the public interest factor in the most important one and i just in i'd like to provide some perspective about form not convenience in general it is a way to curtail you know tort plaintiffs abusing our court system but this as this court said in the clean texas has a strong interest in forcing laws against texas based defendants and so the fact that there are some flights in mexico just like in many other cases in this district i think that this court put it best in the byrd case in one thousand nine hundred and fifty five if there are major just because there's major operations all over the world far flung like many businesses in this district the place the defendant surely can't complain that we're suing them for a contract at their headquarters where they're  a bedrock assumption that we all rely on because economically that courts in this district will enforce international contracts and affirming this particular order would open the door to similar border hopping using these a you know affiliates shell corporations that on both sides of the border to have a jurisdiction everywhere  and this is my st argument i would appreciate any questions that you might have at this point it's such a simple case i've covered the the main issue there there was that we were dismiss and a breach of contract case is not an indispensable party and here the district judge she as best we can understand he said quote individual mexican citizens include lack of macs are indispensable parties and we're not sure who that is we haven't heard of them until this until the suit that you know they're they're claiming in the court to describe them as it is a pretty speculative rd party contract and it's they please court counsel for your app to lay it may help for me to put the events of this case into context for you and specifically you've read in the briefs about this campaign for governorship of tell me leave us mexico the candidate was a gentleman and this gentleman is a is not a nobody he's a somebody he was on by nancy pelosi in two thousand and seven through a distinguished border leader he was the mayor of madame ross mexico a city of a half a one million people he was supposed to win the election his but we take the complying as alleged in this compliant says that there was an oral contract with louis ck carlos because to throttle us and so that might not be a good client based on what you're saying that looking at just the complaint finding he found that all the witnesses were in mexico the documents were in mexico he found that the events happened in mexico but he found that all the testimony would have to be translated from spanish those are not clearly erroneous  liable for the claims that were made against him and of course that doctors in the room i can't judge white found in his opinion that there were people in mexico he said including the mexican corporation but i would suggest to you that under your standard of review where you can affirm on any basis supported by the record the court can fine is the pleading support that a potential rd party is this baltimore ochoa either individually or certainly his campaign and maybe even the political party would not get you there i mean the court but almost all white house and have to dismiss that there's absolutely no jurisdiction but how can the court afford complete relief in the absence of these parties who really ought to command our client would have the right to say look th lawsuits in other words they have to take a judgment over here against custody you know who would not be able to point to this other party or parties and tell a jury if this case were tried to a jury that look these services were provided for his benefit not mine then taking the judgment that the jury certainly put all those facts upon the jury and say the contract with with him not with me right in other words point to them as a responsible rd party but the problem with that is that you can't get a judgment against a responsible rd party you've got to bring up did and your poem on combine and motion of not able to bring out all the lava parties so i think there's quite a contrast between what you did in district court and what you're doing today now with us your honor i think the argument that there are responsible  that the facts are essentially undisputed you agree with that i do i do agree with that are they on disputed well you're on to what facts are disputed there's no question that there was transportation services were furnished for the benefit of this candidate denham mexico there's no dispute that perhaps hundreds of flights in connection with this campaign happened in mexico i know the defense is saying well maybe three of these overflights to the united states i don't know whether that's true or not we never really got to the point with discovery where they actually produced these flight manifests they never produced the names of any of the people that were on these airplanes and i think if they were to produce that you'd see clearly that all of the people on these flights all of these flights were these political those that are their version of it is there was a contract between carlos the stiff seven times and right hand your honor there is no contract there was i there is that's not in dispute it i don't i we absolutely disagree with that they say that there was a conversation in two thousand and fourteen remember that the election didn't happen until june of sixty two years later a contract to do what what do they suggest a cuss deal agreed to do he agreed to give them his credit card give them a blank check and let them run up a one million two hundred thousand dollars bill flame politico's around mexico it just doesn't make any sense what agreement did they think how to speak it well or certainly i would say to the to the extent that the parties disagree about what the contract was then i would agree with you that that's certainly disputed quite fundamental with a contract time well it's an an or they claim it's an oral contract and they've tried to sue it as a suit in a sworn account but that rule of civil procedure is not a political in federal court but the circuit has recognized that there is a common law suit on an account and it's got the various elements that the court never even reached the merits remember that judge hoyt did not grant summary judgment he didn't this is going to be between two very capable district judges judge hoyt and judge jock who is the judge in a criminal case they're both in the southern district they've got fifty a criminal defendant crossed the border into mexico your honor i don't think i would do that if i wouldn't she might add i don't think i would well she could if she wanted to the st thing out of judge doc's mouth is going to be why can't he appear via video video conferencing i mean after all a judge judge actually sentences people in criminal cases the video conferencing and i think she's going to say she's going to tell the prosecutor call the korda i mean let this guy go to the mexican embassy either in macallan or in houston which is mexican soil if he's already consented to the jurisdiction of the mexican court let him give his testimony via video conference and he's going to testify in spanish because he doesn't speak english well enough to testify in english he testifies in spanish they transcribe it the judge down in mexico one has the transcript instant spanish and nd you can listen to the video he can listen the customer speaking in spanish and their whole story is that it's grossly unfair to them that close to you know would appear the ability of concepts like but this is it's comically inconsistent with the position they took in the case in san antonio where wright had successfully resisted going to san antonio to give his deposition in the fort but your case where they seized his leadership at the same antonio airport the federal prosecutor wanted him to go to same antonio his whole story was that i can get my deposition via video conferencing from mexico to him making a video conferencing you're aware that you're supposed route twenty eight dollars to a letter has been disallowed in this court i saw that your honor that's regrettable the transcript could the translation was eight hundred dollars but it is what it is i would certainly urge that  yes ma'am i'll certainly do that if the court if the court believes that it's important but i think that document is is is important to this proceeding because the supreme court of mexico isn't door seeing video conferencing in mexican federal criminal cases that's like our u s supreme court formally endorsing video conferences in criminal cases now at circuit by circuit including this circuit but that would be like our supreme court endorsing it countrywide is the supreme court of mexico is done we don't know that that we don't have anything in this record judge point did omit the return jurisdiction clause and we've agreed in or brief that the circuit law indicates that a return jurisdiction clause should be inserted in a dismissal form not convenience i don't know whether the circuit law would mandate that a return jurisdiction clause be inserted in the dismissal for failure to join an indispensable party i just don't know that i couldn't find a case that held one where the other but i think that for purposes of trying to keep the case law consistent it perhaps would be a good the court would remain on but i would suggest to you that if you do remain on that it be a limited dream and that we not reopen this proceeding unless the court feels like additional findings are perhaps necessary i just don't think they're going to do any better on  think that on remand of judge hoyt reopens the record he's going to look at that mess in san antonio and he's inconsistent statements that they made and he's going to get the result in the case is going to be the same he's going to say just go to mexico and judge it be there judge hoyt and judge jackson get together and work out whatever logistical problems they are with respect to custody oh giving us testimony that that should not be an intent in that to the transfer of the case to mexico where these events happen where the documents or where the parties are were all the potential parties or an issue that this circuit has considered with the return jurisdiction clause they expect that the defendant or potential defendant to actually waive limitations and he's done that express like so there's really no impediment for a tribunals in mexico so what's the end justice in all of this i just don't see it it would be an injustice to the case to be here for custody you cannot bring in the people that he believes that he contends are responsible to pay the debt that was incurred by this political campaign down in mexico the district court and we have to review this for abuse of discretion presumably the district court is not required to make findings so that we at least know what the basis for his decision was your honor i think that the record is complete enough that the court can defer to his stop findings facts find these are not clearly erroneous and that his conclusions of law are correct if the court thinks that there needs to be additional findings that's your prerogative to remain because the case has got to go back anyway for him to enter the  the return jurisdiction clause but i would urge that we just not start from scratch in the district court i mean what we were hearing that counsel's argument earlier that all of a sudden the court dismissed that's not true this was extensively briefed on both sides there were motions and replies and things like out that were filed with documents judge white how to very complete record in front of him when he decided i think fairly and justly to go to mexico i mean i'm not going to decide the case on the merits go to mexico and medicate the case down there where this case ought to be brought i'll just briefly correct a couple of items judge jack has already denied him travel to houston there is no way she would allow him  to travel to mexico and as far as the video conferencing option and which was sent to the court on friday night again we ended up calling a bunch of lawyers over the weekend mexican state appellate judges and nobody knows how that would work it has never been done in a civil trial in mexico it's far he referred to  order roughly two paragraphs they're short paragraphs one of the findings i guess is the evidence is also disputed that the mexican form is adequate for resolution of the party's dispute what does that mean the evidence is disputed is that a finding your honor when we received this order we could not understand what was said you know but i can hope they meant that the evidence is dispute and the judge appeared to have inserted that argument as part of the public interest factors and just to briefly clear clarify th previous case in which i filed a motion for protective order regarding an interview at the d o j office in san antonio and in a prior case that's the exact opposite of the situation that's whether a u s court under u s law would allow a video deposition i've no idea what a mexican court is going to do we've been trying to get an answer in mexico and we would have liked to develop that and had expert testimony on this but the judge beat us to it and we were not able to provide you with a better record explained a return jurisdiction clause is not going to quote it will not solve the gulf oil problems with this judge's order so it's that is an error but it's for my client i would just have tacking that on would not solve anything and be a catastrophic result we would have five years of litigation in mexico over just to get an answer because this is such a novel  concept and i think i believe this judge owen asked an interesting question about how the mexican court would get jurisdiction and finally i i ran across a coa in the central district of california that actually examined the jurisdictional statute in mexico and concluded that it wasn't sufficient evidence they hadn't met their burden that a mexican judge in a contract case would accept jurisdiction a us citizen involved in you know prohibited from traveling outside of the united states but we've learned there's all kinds of issues regarding that you all may be familiar with these border shooting cases that have come here on on bond where there was some many m of his briefs or mexican jurists about whether mexican courts would accept jurisdiction over over the case involving the the us border agents and all i know and all that's in the record is that this is a very complicated situation