read delaware is subject to the general personal jurisdiction of california there's no no dispute about that the issue is whether the record hotel company l supreme court case on top person for first facts absolutely i don't think that helps you it doesn't hurt us and i'll tell you why the united states supreme  court i'm sure you're familiar with it with the history of that the the the in and bank in bank proceeding in the ninth circuit the courts found that there was jurisdiction under the foreign service sovereign immunity act and the judge justice roberts and the majority in the opinion of the supreme court said that the foreign service a foreign sovereign immunity act did not allow for the case to proceed in california because the action wasn't based on commercial activity was based on personal injury which but it didn't and the only activity involved occur austria but the supreme court didn't address the question of agency because it said didn't have to i think i think but i think it does have some analogous to the fact even though it's not necessarily controlling but all of us blacks claim turn on the same tragic episode that happened in dubai allegedly caused by the wrongful conduct and dangerous conditions and by which led to injuries that were suffered and by and you know the argument that would be made here is that this black procurement ever reservation in california is no more related to her injury and the by than saxes purchase of a euro pass in the united states is related to her accident in austria much more than that your honor this is record and so forgive me if i'm going to be on the record but i just want to i'm going to be honest answering your question we have a case against the risk carlton in maryland because they said that's where the headquarters is that case that that case is the property owner right or the lessee of the property well it's perfectly appropriate this is not the usual yeah but this is not usual because we're so nervous and that's why we're here so the question is you know how can your reach california your honor they don't have to have their agents and each other and if i can just if i could just take a moment to sort all of your questions but i want i want to make sure that i make the points that i think i'm obligated to make to do my job so if you look at  the court's actually doing your job is answering a question i'm sorry it's actually doing your job is answering our questions yes but i thought i should do more than that i mean i thought it was my responsibility to more than that  the case against crisscrossing hotel company ltd in the appropriate jurisdiction without deciding what the appropriate jurisdiction is we're not asking the court this court to decide what the appropriate jurisdiction is we're saying that we have california has don't you still have to show that miss black claims are right out to r c delaware's activities in california well they were because the because telling how that law that's what i don't know is that i disagree with you on the us a sensible agent i'm still struggling with i don't see how they relate to r c delaware's activities in california because r c because ritz carlton can't function without r c without risk carlton hotel company l l c or delaware they manage the website they control the reservation system there it's a real part of the entire risk carlton hotel enterprise our reservation damage that might be one thing but it's a premises liability now but we're talking about know for purposes of agency and jurisdiction you don't have to show we don't when it's not our burden to show risk delaware created a dangerous condition in bermuda that the tripping hazard that that risk crowd holding itself out as a single enterprise which it does as we which is set forth in the website and its whole marketing program and i know if you've ever stay a risk are long but i w the evidence there but to the make the go to great efforts to make it seem like it's a seamless single enterprise now if that is so and their agents of each other then according to the california authorities that mean federal authorities and california authorities there is sufficient contact with california under an agency relationship between rich cotton hotel company no way a reasonable customer could figure that out so and let me just finish that quote that i was about to say that i was reading and again this is from judge statistical authority and this is the point that i want to make them trying to make a sensible authority may be proven through evidence of the principals representations to the public in general and then if you if you  record ritz carlton dubai i think that that is something that has caused some confusion in the briefing about it that's not an entity there is no ritz carlton dubai ritz carlton is a brand name like mcdonald's that's used in a number of the hotel owner what ritz carlton bermuda does pursuant to the agreements produced in the record which carlton bermuda is a party to only one contract as part of the contract with the owner that contract has nothing to carlton bermuda to operate that hotel overseas which carlton bermuda is an overseas company that operates no hotels within the united states its mandate is for overseas hotels the only connection between rich carlton delaware and bermuda is that they have the same parent marion and i think the case law that's been well briefed to the court conclusively establishes that that's not enough of a linkage hold affiliates parents subsidiaries the the bermuda company doesn't have contact with the web site the contract for the website between the owner of the property and ritz carlton delaware and that is not nest it's not strictly a  contract the website if you look at the agreement that's in the record it says that it has access to the reservation system of ritz carlton it has access to i think another computer system that allows them to internally track the hotel that's in that two point four section they hold themselves up to the world as one you know i don't i do you know i mean if you know how it works you know that their properties are own agency theory in this case fails for a number of reasons first of all this case is almost on all fours with the guese case for supplant hotel which was another mary access in aruba the only connection alleged to the us was that marriott ran a website that you could get reservations there and the court in that case said that's not enough the ostensible agency has to create an actual and reasonable belief in the mind of the person believing it that that's an agency is created there's nothing on the web site that says the ritz carlton is an agent for any of the overseas hotels and i would submit to the court that it's not reasonable for people in the us the ri website did nothing more than yelp effect less than yelp kayak trip advisor any other system that ties into the marriott ritz carlton or hilton reservation system  simply has a listing of hotels it will show pictures state the amenities but there are no guarantees on the website and plaintiff in fact has not testified to relying on any such guarantees in fact she gave the exact same testimony that they gave  the case that she just relied on it for general general conditions it's a good property there is it i don't believe it's a reasonable belief for us in the u to believe that a us company a delaware company can control worldwide operations i think when you go particularly to a company like the people's republic of china or the united arab emirates or places that have significantly different legal systems significantly different customs i don't think that it's reasonable i don't think ostensible agency is correct is is created by someone simply believing that the u s controls the world well i think it's reasonable to believe that one thing that that mary controls all the marriott hotels is inside a reasonable you know in france a girl from everything  evidence in the record that delaware does anything else than operate a web site just like kayak just like trip advisor the thing that gets you have a point is the ordinary person there just think it's one big  know one big happy family i don't think that's a reasonable belief to have your daughter for the reasons i stated about another country that i use legal in the us have a little disclaimer bermuda's agent if when miss blackburne arrived at the ritz carlton by the hotel refused to honor her reservation or charge her a greater amount and she therefore sued r c bermuda  california with the district court had jurisdiction that if it related to the reservation it would not r c bermuda does not have any contract with the web site the contract with the website is all moot and sons r c bermuda has no direct contact with the with r c delaware at all other than being a subsidiary company would that create an agency relationship with the hotel that's a different question not before us today  which is unanimous justice roberts even though they didn't specifically get to the agency issue i think that their view of the case under the subject matter jurisdiction at issue there is very instructive here and i think the court has has focused on it there is nothing about the website here that has anything to do with a ramadan curtain in a hotel in dubai there's no representation on the web site that you're not going to see any ramadan curtains there during ramadan that is a specific act of the individual property that has nothing to do with the website even if somehow bermuda on the hotel which it does so i mean you seem to be arguing that there could never are that that risk rocking can never be responsible for anything here but i i'm not sure that i buy that but i i am i do think agency existing it would be for the reservations perhaps which i'm curious what you know how you would make that argument i would also indicate to the court that she didn't make a reservation to the reservation system right claim here is that a person read the website didn't reserve through the website but somehow relied on the website to go talk to a travel but i think that that touches on something just as robert said in this opinion is he and i recognize we're talking about subject matter jurisdiction but he said if we that we should not be able or we should not allow artful pleading to get around a legal requirement and if the court goes in the direction that the plaintiff wants them to go well essentially doesn't was artful here claiming that she read a website basically it allows any person anywhere in the u s to say i read that website of that company therefore even though there's no other there's no other contact with california other than that website simply because i read it hold them liable here that's what the plaintiffs asking for in this case and i don't think we can go there it's we're going to be the court of the world  firm other than mine who asked us for copies of our briefing i gave that to them as far as i know the reason for that is basically a mistake that was made in the record the paralegal who supplied the declaration initially as to brit's remuda initially said the principal place of business was in maryland that was not true the principal place of business is in bermuda it was corrected in the declaration plaintiff was given time to do discovery in this case which they did not do they didn't challenge that so so as far as i know that's kind of what's going on there that for the reason stated i think that this is that the argument here i wasn't quite sure what all would be argued but it seemed to come down just an ostensible agency and i think we've talked about that i would also argue that as far as rights delaware the motion to dismiss was granted there and again focusing on the o b b case i'll call it and judge carter's discussion there there is no evidence that the delaware controlled anything in  this but if we accept the veracity of that evidence what i was of that agreement what evidence is there contract and contracting that allegations  c and ritz carlton bermuda two overseas entities contracting overseas and in fact the only think the other one the other contracted issue in this case also does not name delaware that is a contract between the hotel owner and i h l c international but hell licensing corporation which is a luxembourg company based in switzerland so both of those contracts were entered into overseas neither one of those contracts makes a reference to rich carlson and delaware although i think there is a reference to going on the being part of the reservation system i don't think it says about going on the web site we're making representations on the website but it does talk about being part of the reservation system and being part of the system for tracking what goes on in the hotel the hotel operating system of some kind to computer programs essentially so with that i would i would say that judge carter spent a long time on this he had it under submission a long time and i thought his opinion was axed was not just because it went i went for us but i think it was very well reasoned very well thought out and i would urge that he be affirmed thank you and thank you for your service or thank you case when you consider what you're going to do with with this appeal you might look at section three of the supreme court decision where if you're concerned about saks being in conflict with my arguments i think if you consider that part of the decision you'll see that there is no conflict the other point is the stated operating agreement specifically we've all you a sensible agency because we think that's the easiest places for reversal based on a prima facia standard but there's also an actual agency as you can  standards of construction furnishing and equipping applicable to other hotels comparable to the hotel and operated by the operator course affiliates pursuant to risk carlton's rights and then on paragraph two point five page eighteen excerpt of record two two hundred point one zero two point five zero it restates that the standards of operations in care will be just as ought to be the same all over so that's part of the single enterprise concept you've been you've been very patient with me i want to answer any questions if i have if you have any ok thank you very much appreciate it thank you