relationship with them going back to twenty thousand and fifty two cases began winds case in the eps case we litigated in the eastern district of pennsylvania generated almost eleven million in fees that were came through my clients they interviewed the clients they screen the cases they helped out and they delivered them to the morgue and the camp for they were horrified to find out that there was a plan to avoid paying them the entitle me to that fee the district court's decision dismissing our complaint with prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction was clearly wrong and there is overwhelming evidence that the police waived any objection to personal jurisdiction by leaving the case litigating the case extensively on the merits for fifteen months and i'd like to point out that in every one of the rd circuit cases i was talking about the way in which would find waiver and what you should do and not filing of a complaint i and that is and that is that for your clients that is if you wait that long to file and you proceed pretty complete discovery how how can the failure week i'm either filing want to getting one everybody knows every practitioner should know in pennsylvania you file a will to show cause the court automatically will say to them file a complaint and if you don't the complaint gets dismissed so what the current  rd circuit case law says is filing a rule to show cause is not a waiver and you need to attack and address and challenge personal jurisdiction early on so that you're not wasting judicial resources but they obviously knew how to file a will to show cause because they did it november two thousand and seventeen therefore what they did in the fifteen months prior to that constituted a waiver and i'll give you an example they  have to do that they didn't challenge jurisdiction these are the ten things that they did they did not issue a rule to file a complaint and claim complain there's no jurisdiction had they done that within thirty days they could have been in federal court and challenge jurisdiction they produced extensive discovery your honor never wants the word that jurisdiction or lack thereof does not appear in any of their papers they participated in any hearing on a motion to compel to your mail and if you read anything else in the case the two e mails that issue are the record at page two hundred and twenty in two to twenty three what they actually did here was they didn't want those emails coming out and those e mails are where my client writes in later them and says hey i saw pay seven dollars for six hundred million dollars was that the x case i referred you and morgan for camps responses not i want not sure or maybe heavens no it's not the michael apps case thirty days later they file and filing the notice of removal is not a waiver but we've litigated the case for fifteen months and back to this issue the judge in common pleas court there was a hearing transcript it's all part of the record they never say hey judge we don't want you to produce these e mails because there's no jurisdiction they argued in litigated the merits of whether those were privileged the judge said they're absolutely not privileged what they show always you're lying to the client telling the client the e mail says you're going to compensate my clients farman says don't worry i'm personal jurisdiction and it's normally the time of the complaint as opposed to the probably of the president yes but if you are a practitioner in pennsylvania and you're aware of these cases you should know that you can engage in conduct that we've jurisdiction by litigat case even before the rule to show cause they should have filed the will to show cause they waited until two thousand and seventeen november to file the will to show cause they had little gaited the case for fifteen months that procedure was available to them that have that that they had to do it is the now rate case and the the up the industry insurance industry of ireland case which says if you engage in conduct which litigates the merits of the case you are deemed to have waived personal jurisdiction in something that's clearly way one and here's what i would say your honor to that question if a writ is fog and jim pennsylvania you can do nothing that's one option but if you're going to challenge jurisdiction you have to file a will to file a complaint you in pennsylvania state court federal court rules piggyback on what had to be filed under the the local rules ok so don't cite to me the supreme court case in the ireland i want to hear about a pennsylvania case all i see is a pennsylvania supreme court case that says says that resisting discovery on grounds of confidentiality and privilege amounts to a waiver that you had to move for the complaint before that there's not a pennsylvania state course that says exactly that but they never really they never mentioned jurisdiction at all and they had that procedural tool available to them did the cases say you do have to raise and challenge jurisdiction st that's the st thing you have to deal with and the way to do that is either to raise an objection to the discovery process directly file a motion a protective order which is available or speak to the court we don't want to answer this discovery there should be discovery limited to the issues of jurisdiction which was not we were just twenty eight cases out there that say that can take how do you reconcile that  matters and two years later there's an objection filed as to the court's jurisdiction and the supreme court said these other things are sort of collateral including the discovery defrauded us we think we will show that give them to us and they never once said any in fifteen months they could have said if they had an obligation to file a motion for protective order rather than defend the case on the merits which is what they did could we could we talk a little bit is our options here if we don't agree that you prevail on way hermie our options here would be to just remand the case or to dismiss the case that one of the consequences why shouldn't we dismiss the case the ok you want to make a specific jurisdiction point and that's fine to make after you answer my question ok my question is about what happens if we dismiss mither the remand what time bars or ethics rules bar which pieces of the case in ohio corder in texas in ohio and i was getting the route to answer your question of the reason we believe the market my clients discussions with them that they brought the case here was one they had got other cases here in the eastern district they like the way that they negated ten cases and you can get a referral fee without doing anything beyond making an abduction that is not a law at all and in ohio so if the case was transferred to ohio their claim that it would be barred and they had a relationship with this family they had  we have two e mails that clearly show it was a misrepresentation made to refer in counsel and the client and i want to talk just one more minute about the specific jurisdiction is that they decided to file here because they want to get referred cases here from all over the country and the liberal referral fee rules here lawyers coming in here like merging for camp proactively she have to honor the rules here it's a privilege to practice here we now have direct record evidence here that what they were doing while litigating the case here for six years they are the ones that chose to bring it here that they knew they were going to dishonor the obligation and misrepresent to refine how so that even handled the case that all occurred during a six year period when they were in the eastern district of pennsylvania so how does that offend notions of fair play and substantial justice that you're going to holding firm that shows the eastern district of pennsylvania to litigate for six years in this case but we have other criteria that we have to look to y that matters and that may have been the reason but there's nothing in the record about why the case was filed here and i don't know that that's relevant to the specific jurisdiction question before you and so because your questions are of alludes to you know where we establish in context with the state let me talk about specific jurisdiction because i think it is clear that we were establishing some contacts and solving it the question is whether the other side's claims arise from those contacts and really they don't so if you think about the hypothetical contract that they say existed the contract as they describe it in their complaint and it's odd that we're the only ones in the brief actually cite parts of the complaint but what they say in the complaint is there was an oral agreement made in two thousand and seven we're going to do this we're going to pay a referral fee right and then there was a breach of that oral agreement after the f case concluded because we didn't pay the full fee ok but nothing that happened in pennsylvania matters for purposes of whether they have a valid claim as we put it on our brief and they don't have an answer to this argument it doesn't matter how the case turned into money we could have filed it in any jurisdiction we could have never filed it we could have settled without a filing we could have done any number of things but they would say the same thing no matter what and that shows you go for it that's correct your honor so your honor again there's nothing in the record about that and i wouldn't want to speak to it because i don't those kind of strategic decisions are not really before the court in this case at this point in time i was at the complaint contains no allegation about but what i won't what i can say is that from the explanation i just gave you the filing in pennsylvania is not essential to the other side's claims nothing about the fact that the case was  pennsylvania gives rise to either the breach of contract claims or any of the intentional torts that they say were committed now i want to emphasize this because the other side did really spend quite a bit of time and energy harping on how unjust this is all then there successful that that is that is a fair point that they allege that your honor i don't just shoot the pale edge that i think if they want to let it be that the place to do that is ohio and that's what they should have done i'm not disputing their right to make allegations in a complaint and to litigate out this case on the matter what we have argued in life think the district court was not wrong to agree with us on this point is that this case simply does not belong in pennsylvania and there is no nexus with the events that occurred in pennsylvania that gives rise to their that we cited in our briefs in which this court affirmed a dismissal with prejudice on personal interest diction grounds that is i will admit the only case we found holding as much and so you know we think there is authority to affirm that  position in this case for two reasons st that the other side did not really request a different remedy until it got to this court and nd that there's no real way for them to hew or the jurisdictional defect in their kicks that's that if you don't like the result of that case and you don't think the dismissal with prejudice is the appropriate remedy i think the right thing to do in this case would be to hold that dismissal without prejudice is the right remedy because they haven't really again they didn't ask for any other remedy until they got to this court at a minimum i don't think you should decide whether to transfer the case to texas which is what they're asking because the parties certainly disagree if there's going to be a transfer of all the parties disagree about where the case should be transferred to and those equitable considerations already told you that they don't believe they would be prejudiced by that we'll have a debate about that if and when they refile their case but i don't think it was the end all an abuse of the district courts discretion to dismiss the case in these circumstances and i don't think it would be any of you i don't think it would be wrong for you to affirm under the precedent that was kind of now that is an unpublished decision so it's not controlling precedent but it is i think persuasive to the extent it's relevant and the facts seem to be on all fours  there this is all about what it was we've written a state court proceeding so that's correct there is the leading treatise right miller says by removing you do not thereby waive any defenses and i think the way courts mostly look at this is if there had already been a waiver of a personal jurisdiction challenge in state court then we remove the federal powers not going to resurrect the waves challenge so i don't think it changes the outcome but certainly the act of removing to federal court is not going to waive our defense in this but one thing that's really interesting that you could look to is on their in their bricks opening brief page twenty nine and then at the end of the chumpy footnote one on their reply they come very very close to conceding that had we filed preliminary objections try to fault us for instead of removing it i think that's a clearly wrong position but what they're concession shows is that all of the stuff they're saying constituted waiver beforehand participating in discovery on grounds of attorney client privilege for example is not enough to constitute a waiver and judge me because you're questioning showed there is no pennsylvania case holding that all of the authority says that the right way to do this is to wait until the complaint is filed and then file your problem area objections in the absence of any authority saying that we had to do anything else i think it would be a very bad decision to say that there was a waiver in this case because you want to look in some cases personal jurisdiction is going to be a bit of a hairy inquiry that's what this court's decision o'connor says about whether you're discovery removes the case to federal court and then challenges person jurisdiction of the court finds no waiver it's just beyond opinion from two thousand and five and it's just completely on point and it's a clear rule d it's administered ball  i think party should be able to rely on that precedent i think this court should affirm the decision below to establish that precedent so that we everybody understands exactly what the waiver rule is i don't think that they are right to say that any of the things that happened beforehand constituted including because it just crosses question pointed out they really were collateral that we're not allowed to say in response to their request for a pre complaint discovery you don't have a valid claim on the merits we're not allowed to say that and we didn't say that always said was this information is privileged and we don't think you need to file a complaint but that doesn't indicate our willingness to litigate on the merits at all or to wait especially it doesn't indicate an explicit waiver of a personal jurisdiction defends the pennsylvania law preserves for us was they made a motion to do discovery is one deposition limited to the issue of jurisdiction week we've got no depositions here whatsoever and they actually answer discovery and raise d the merits in their discovery responses i want to point that out i'm a little disappointed in the fact that it doesn't appear that the panel believes that there should be a close look at the specific jurisdiction argument that we've made in the gal minds case which is the case that came before the apps case we have a law firm that we caught hiding a fee from us and through that process we found out they were doing it again in the case they chose to come here to the eastern district of pennsylvania and dollars emails knowing they were trying to swindle us out of a fee for lack of a better term the rules require them to honor the local rules of professional conduct which say the rules of the local tribe room apply that fee came in six years after they wrote that e mail they kept the money they transferred it to ohio and they paid themselves without us knowing about it even though we had asked them specifically how is that the case i referred you i am troubled that that would not be deemed a specific jurisdiction when you do something like that as a lawyer here act you've been given the privilege to practice here oh just to get ohio because then you won't have to pay i'm troubled by that in eastern district of pennsylvania when we know they in fact may be tempted to rip us off because we have the email to the client don't worry i'm going to contact the land of farley compensate them but when we ask they say no we can handle the case what's the bet all that was done