the only issue in this appeal your honour's is whether the trial court erred in dismissing all claims against the a defendant's and where jhon face had the requisite minimum contacts with the state of illinois under the illinois long arm statute the answer to this recently as about a month ago in runners which i believe became final in the first district case of coal k o w a l vs giant manufacturing company which is the two thousand and seventeen first district case not because once again it did not become final until a few days ago it's my understanding but once again completely interprets the russell case in the russell rule in favor of our position in this matter as one of a court further knows the russell court thoroughly analyzed the entire legal history of the exercise of specific personal jurisdiction over a foreign nonresident defendant reading the russell case was like going back to law school and looking through all of the precedents of international shoe jamie mcintyre asahi all of the relevant decisions but what the russell court ultimately did when reviewing those decisions was that it specifically rejected the idea that the narrow stream of commerce theory has prevailed instead the r recognized the disagreement and the unsettled state of the law of specific not subject matter jurisdiction and declined to specifically adopt that narrow stream of commerce theory did they adopt the broadwood no i don't think th specifically adopted either test in this case so i quite frankly i believe it may still be in somewhat of a state of flux as to whether or not the specific type of jurisdiction is going to be likable however in reading the russell ruling i think that the specific language used by the justices was done so for the purpose so weaning toward so to speak the broad stream of commerce theory the russell case analyzed three specific underlying points in or reasonably should know that its products are being distributed and sold in the united states and specifically in illinois jurisdiction is established and free under international shoe the court must still focus on the notions of fair substantial justice so those three underlying points i think were emphasized and russell and recently interpreted in cobol well do you think in russell they also came to the conclusion that when a manufacturer do not have just a single sale we have gen failed defendants absolutely admitting that they have sold and distributed and said to the port of chicago in this one shipment alone over two hundred sixty cartons of wheels and the knowledge that that was not the only shipment from from ningbo china to the port of chicago distributed in illinois but that was over a course of i believe almost ten years shipments are we're talking thousands of wheels have been distributed throughout the state of illinois from the gen fame manufacture wheels so we're not talking just about a single distribution of one or four wheels in this case we're talking about a continuous relationship of a shipment of products from ningbo china manufactured  into illinois and their testimony even though it to suit was disputed by the affidavit their testimony in the invoices showed that being knew that those products were in fact being distributed and sold through the port of chicago obviously chicago illinois clarify that fruit salad make sure that i have a complete understanding are you saying that those were specifically to be distributed in chicago illinois or were going through the port in chicago balun from other states or other places outside illinois i think both your honor i think that they were both bound for places with n l annoying as well as potentially outside of illinois but the ultimate receiver of those goods and wholesaler and retailer as emphasized in yonder where they state it doesn't matter so to speak that you're using third party distributors where their products ultimately end up in illinois it's the fact that they are in fact coming into the state and being used in the state and i think th are strikingly similar to the facts of this case being the french manufacture of this custom made ball bearings they did not know that their products for even being used for distributed are sold in illinois but they knowingly used an american distributor to sell and markets products throughout the united states including in illinois but there is one outlier who's in council there were several other factors and relationships and gave each man's involved in that case that we don't seem to have here and i agree with your honor but i think that if you look at page ten of our of our apply brief we analyzed the russell court's opinion concerning it analysis of those additional factors and russell seemed to say we have met jurist requirements into the broad stream of commerce theory but it doesn't matter in the russell case specifically because they said they also met the narrow stream of commerce tasks and the facts cited by opposing counsel were the facts that they used to support the narrow stream of commerce so the basis of the decision seemed to be the broad stream of commerce but the elena supreme court said but that didn't matter in that case because it also satisfied the narrow stream of commerce but i think the basis of the r opinion as i have argued is more leaning toward so to speak even though not officially gaveling the adoption of the broad stream of commerce theory they found the broad stream of commerce theories factors so to speak as  dispositive is as to whether or not specific jurisdiction was going to be recognized in the russell case so in looking at the additional factors cited by opposing counsel we just felt that they were irrelevant for our purposes because one they did exist here but t because it was simply additional factors that the illinois supreme court found to justify its decision but i think most importantly your honour's in deciding this case is the meaning and rationale as to why we should establish an exercise over this nonresident foreign defendant and the reason for that is this this manufacturer is involved in the regular distribution of its products albeit through third parties into and being used by illinois citizens if those products are in fact manufactured in an active and they used to injure and harm eleanor's citizens on ellen oil roads illinois has a substantial interest in deciding whether or not we should be hold those manufacturers to  to justice quite frankly honors so that the final question that was posited by russell and most jurisdictional cases it's whether or not it's reasonable to have gin faith answer to any defective products that it knows are coming into  and i think in balancing all of the factors in this case the the the interest in the state of illinois i think is undeniable the interest of the plaintiffs is undeniable and i know one of the arguments of jin fay as well that the plaintiffs will be covered so to speak because my client is in the case a distributor of the product direct line is in the case the distributor of the product but here we're looking at justice so justice is to all the parties that's not just to the plaintiffs so the pain toasts should performed it's the strong interest of illinois to protect its citizens in cases exactly like this and while gen fay may be a foreign corporation it has purchased insurance it is retained counsel the only factor that i think that they're attempting to argue is it would be a substantial burden for them to come argue and defend itself and l annoyed times change we are looking at it in a valving technology we are looking at different burdens that have  actually lessened over time we can take depositions by skype we can get documents by electronic means we can essentially have all of these these things take place with a much lesser burden than was held under international shoe or one hundred years ago when when maybe a chinese manufacturer would it would possibly have a substantial burden to to defend itself in the united states that's no longer the case and i think that that needs to be taken into consideration they have insurance purchased in the united states specifically inside their course opposing counsel saying that is just not something we should even consider why should we consider that it should be considered because it is a factor that gin fein knew we could be sued in the united states otherwise they wouldn't have purchased insurance for the protection of claims in the united states and gives them access to counsel to defend them which counsel has admirably done throughout the course of these proceedings and it shows that it lessens their burden to defend itself in the state of illinois and the united states because of that very factor so for all of those reasons we think the reason illness factor weighs in our clients and the plaintiffs are so for all of the reasons stated in our previous and here today we respectfully request that the time a court reversed the trial court order dismissing the gen fay defendants from this case and furman the cause back for furthe good morning justices my name is tom pender i represent the two chin free defendants may please the court counsel good morning nearly three years ago i filed motions to dismiss these two chinese corporations from this case based on lack of personal jurisdiction in the brief time that i have with the panel this morning in addition to answering any questions you have i'd like to talk about a few key areas including number one who my clients are and where they are in this litigation  to i'd like to address the seventy plus years of supreme court law which has been consistent but has been refined and clear more clearly defined over the years to determine what does and does not matter when analyzing personal jurisdiction establish jurisdiction either through their pleadings or through evidence they have to establish that there is a basis for them to sue my clients under the only long arm statute if there is we would then move to the federal due process analysis where the question is depending on whether it's general or specific jurisdiction in this case it's specific to the plaintiff's conceded general jurisdiction is not involved so for specific the question would be whether or not there are minim contacts and whether or not proceeding with the suit against my clients in mclean he would offend traditional notions of fair plates stage justice that latter analysis includes a discussion of five factors that have been laid the requirements of international shoot minimal contests a due process requirements must be met as to each defendant i have two defendants here and i urge the court to consider that there are two defendants the information as to those defendants on some points is very similar they have the same address they're both located in china but there are differences there are subtle differences that i urge the court to consider and to analyze both separately  brief essentially links my two clients together as if there is no daylight between the two and there is in fact a careful review shows that there that there are the differences between the two the pleading  holding company is merely a holding it owns didn't they will holding company does not mean a faction or any gentry holding goes ship it doesn't sell it doesn't market it has no contracts with anyone in illinois or any of the parties in this case jim fay we'll on the other hand also located in china is a manufacturer but they sell those wheels in china they enter into contracts in china and when they sell those wheels they deliver them as far as the port in china and no farther jim fay wheel has no contracts with anyone in the state of illinois the only both testified and they confirmed that the local the the locus of the relationship between you p c and chin farai wheel is in china they the u p c people went to china to get that business the contract between the two parties says that if there's a dispute between us it will be resolved in chinese international economic and trade association arbitration that that arbitration will take place in the in both china it will take place in the language chinese and it will be according to p r c people's republic of china law that's the agreement that these two parties enter  we know that they did not suit in favor we'll yet they concentrate significant effort trying to establish a trace between the wheels that were involved in the accident looming and to trace them back to the wheel for reasons that i've brief i think they failed on then but more importantly i think that's the wrong question the question is they need to establish a relationship between these two chinese companies and illinois that's the relationship that they have to tra the u s supreme court has said that the constitutional touchstone remains whether a defendant purposely establish minimum contacts in the state and the relevant contacts are those the u s supreme court says that center on the relation among the defendant the forum and the litigation there must be some action by which each of my clients purposely availed itself of the privilege of conducting business in illinois invoking the  benefits privilege of illinois law and mere foreseeability is not enough worldwide bokes wagon established that many years ago and worldwide volkswagen the court said foreseeability alone is gets in the supreme court rejected that solution long ago and has continued to reject it since the court said that such a rule would effectively abolish the limitations on the sovereignty of the state instead the foreseeability that the court said you should look at is not whether or not it's foreseeable that the product would end up or rather it should be whether the defendant's conduct in connection with the form state illinois are such that it should reasonably anticipate being hailed and whether or not financial benefits accrue to a defendant from a collateral relationship in other words downstream commercial consciousness of stream of commerce excuse me and alice's the us supreme court has said that there must be something more than foreseeability justice o'connor talked about factors that would constitute something more more recently justice prior be concurring opinion in the castro said you've got to have a regular flow you've got to have a regular flow of product to state a regular course of business dealings you must have some special state failed this court's precedents i think are important just samples and as i mentioned you wrote the con and you also wrote i'm going to say it wrong probably you also talked in that case about the fact that it is not enough that you know that he has caused in illinois in other words the unilateral activities of others other than the nonresident here chinese defendants that  the facts being felt in illinois does not equate with minimum contacts and the us supreme court in walden versus fiore in two thousand fourteen reaffirm that that principle the course of the mere fact that the defendant fact felt in illinois without any contacts by the defendants with illinois does not justify the exercise of personal jurisdiction and to so rule would violate the defendant's due process rights having failed to establish any minimum contacts that either gin fe defendant has state of illinois i believe that the analysis and so there and i feel the same way about the failure to is evidence minimum contacts you then turn to be the latter part of the process analysis which is the five factors you pc's brief they give casual reference to the fact that there is no burden on my defendants and argue none of the other factors whatsoever i would argue that there's been no presentation of plausible presentation that any of the five factors favor the the you the appellants in this case but to review those factors are the burden on the defendant to litigate the case no that's number one i would take a position that that burden is severe and i believe that the hague evidence convention state department publications about litigation involving chinese nationals and just the facts of this case are such that a finding should be that the the burden on my clients is not only would they be commanded to traverse the distance between their headquarters in china and the district court of mclean county to litigate this is but they would be submitting to this dispute to a foreign country's traditional system which it does they do not understand in a language which they see the unique burdens placed on one who must defend oneself in a foreign legal system should have significant weight in assessing reasonable miss of stretching the long arm of personal jurisdiction over national borders supreme court said that inside they caution in addition before i was involved for my clients were involved in this case this case was originally pending in cook there was a motion to transfer its mclean county the plaintiffs who are appealing this case took the position that it would be an undue burden on them to move the case from cook to mclean u p c and the others who were in the case at the time argued it was an undue burden for them to be in cook county as opposed to clay having taken those positions in circuit court i would suggest they have no basis to argue that there is a significant burden on my client when we're going all the way bringing them all the way from china the second factor to look at is whether or is that case and it's for reasons of that point that my brief if the plaintiffs shaw and young were concerned that these chinese defendants should answer in the state of illinois they could have and should have opposed the motion in the circuit court by actually participating initiating jurisdictional discovery and briefing to arguing the issue which they didn't do  were in when the case came up on appeal they elected not to file any briefs whatsoever how can the state of illinois claim it has a bigger interest in this case when the plaintiffs themselves have shown literally companies have entered into a contract which calls for their disputes to be resolved in china in arbitration not in state one so i would argue that the court the only court should look at the agreement between the two parties illinois have any interest to impose jurisdiction when the parties themselves have agreed not to submit elevators i believe that for the reasons stated the have affected relief in this case they have multiple parties my client did not manufacture the lovable that supposedly grow but they have multiple parties in this case that have submitted to jurisdiction including u p c and the company that designed this will meridian direct line on the official administration of justice which is another factor i don't believe that it's going to be more efficient to bring my client to illinois to participate in litigation where everything is going to be translated were discoveries when to be so cumbersome as to that chinese entity when that chinese company has entered into an agreement with c for those disputes to be resolved in china in arbitration in this case as as i mentioned in my briefs it's been very difficult to conduct discovery it took it took years for the plaintiffs to effect service on my chinese clients under the hague evidence which it's not an easy thing to do and the chinese government i don't believe makes it any easier they are parties to the hague evidence convention but they've asserted exceptions to that treaty that make it clear that they are not interested in their nationals being exposed to us discover it would be illegal for me to present witnesses for deposition in china which is why we present them for deposition hong kong but that's a it's a woman out of effort to get those people necessary he says they need to get so out of balance of all of those factors i believe they all come down in favor of the jim fay defendants there's been no presentation to the contrary from u c and when you consider the international context of these claims the distances of the parties the heavy burdens that are imposed on these nonresident defendants view to be is the slight interests that the plaintiffs have shown in this case and slight interest that this state has in this case in light of the contractual arrangements and the lack of interest by the plaintiff since we believe that the exercise of personal jurisdiction by annoying court over these two defendants holding and we'll be in this instance would be unreasonable and unfair because the facts of this case do not establish minimum contacts such that the exercise  that they claim they would have in defending this case in the state of illinois and also the fact that the plaintiffs they believe have not participated somehow in either the appeal or have not shown any quote unquote interest there's nothing like that in the record the record is they filed lawsuits against and they hold the engine they had a real the fact is that they prosecuted it they conducted discovery on it they conducted depositions on it schedule those depositions participated in that underlying cause of action as well as joined in our poll it really for i don't know why they didn't do in a separate be for their own maybe they felt mine was adequate so the level of participation i think is wholly irrelevant to anything concerning the burdens and the factors that are analyzed by courts in this circumstance and i think an interesting point raised by counsel for it in paying his oral argument that china doesn't want its its corporations to be held accountable here in the united states well maybe it's time maybe it's time that products manufactured in china need if they are defective and if they are profiting off u s citizens and the citizens of the state of illinois that they now need to be accountable if those products are in fact defective thank