good morning my name is jennifer dorsey and i represent the appellant's want to fisher and scott fisher want to fish or sustain serious cardiac injuries from taking the diet drug and then half of which and italian company should this court find removal jurisdiction in this case despite the removing defendant's fatally inadequate notice of removal the just reports the order granting summary judgment must be reversed because traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice require that the number one producer the number one form producer of generic f d a approved drugs in the united states filed for removal on september fifth no other defendant has been served at the time and your claim is that the district court err here by not requiring a party to go and get the consent of other defendants who may or may not ever be defendants who obviously aren't going to join or consent to removal because we don't even know who they're represented by at that point but that's ok because there's an exception to the unanimity requirement and that is if you put in the notice of remov nobody at all is all court created anyway it's not found in the in the removal rules so we're just making it all up as we go along so why why is that what is the why is all of a sudden this why is this critical who is this critical to your client harmed well it's critical be the rules of court because section fourteen forty six that there permits remove all its statutorily created and the united states supreme court this court repeatedly has said that those statutes must be strictly question here is that is is whether they were required to state you said that the failure here was a failure to state that nobody else had been served that was not going to come as a surprise to your clients right right because you control that that so you knew this fact so how because i've got a number of questions on jurisdiction you may want to set about limited time you may want to turn to that absolutely your honor i get it is our position that rematch should have been granted and and two different pharmacies there where it was compound and compound it just like it was in the utah pharmacy that alpha knew its product was coming to the united states it was shipping it to the united states quite deliberately but only for only for research and development purposes and not for commercial consumption whatever that is there but alpha knew that its product was entering the commercial stream and it was likely to served in the record on that issue is completely clear and it's the supplemental excerpts of records pages one through eleven there's two motions filed by the fishers for an extension to serve two of the defendants my client alpha and another defendant sagarin who was never served among those officers excerpts of record or also two declarations from the other to defend its representatives h p s and c p s stating that they had not been served as of the date of removal any technical defect in the notice or removal that was prepared by p c c a the only serve defendant was not it was a procedural defect and not a jurisdictional one and it was secured when all the other defendants consented removal and at the time the district court entered the summary judgment order dismissing alpha for lack of personal jurisdiction there was no doubt that there was complete diversity in proper subject matter jurisdiction there is however no personal jurisdiction over all for  issue in this case was sold by alpha and italy to an italian trader named genome a secret alpha the record reflects made all efforts to ensure that that's one floor amine could not reach the united states for consumer use because it was not yet approved by the f d a for consumer use in the united states and so alfa withheld is part of it sailed in the sea coast company top him key documents that would have allowed him to import received a prescription from her o b g y n she took it to the pharmacists who then at that moment on presentation of the push christian compound it for her and such was the case p c a is professional compound in centers of america they had a network  pharmacies they did exactly this and the pharmacy in provo utah was one of its network had been was the other entities to help import the drug because it was under neath the embargo that prevented it from importing any foreign boelcke pharmaceuticals because it is used pharmaceuticals mark for research and development only which meant they were not for consumer use and not approved consumer use had marketed those for consumer use and that's exactly what happened in this case they marketed this for informing that was sold to an italian for use elsewhere because it was all this from forming was approved for use and nearly every other country in the world outside the united states the united states was the only jurisdiction that the record reflects this from thurman was not yet approved for use and so there's no doubt that effort since learning was intended for consumer use but it was not intended for consumer use in the united states and alfa specifically withheld documents so that missy could could not import it into the united states and the record reflects that alpha had no knowledge that mystique was attempting to or intended to import it to  the united states the testimony of claudio crema niecy whose health as chief of regulatory affairs and quality assurance clearly stated as much product into the stream of commerce alone is not a sufficient basis on which to exercise personal jurisdiction this court has consistently held the specific purpose of only element requires a stream of commerce plus an intentional direction of the product  form state and that we don't have here because alpha specifically tried to keep it out of the united states the fishers jurisdictional claim also fails because mrs fisher consumption was not a product of alpha delivering any of any of alpha's contacts with nevada in fact the but for test fails because mrs fisher's consumption was related only to utah she took the drug in utah she was prescribed the drug in utah by a utah physician and she took almost ninety tablets the record reflects that maybe two or three of the ninety tablets that were not that were prescribed to her were not taken that was entirely in utah with the exception of perhaps two final form of like you get tylenol or advil not that products are being shipped to utah and to nevada which have the same jurisdictional argument we would not your honor and it would be the world wide volkswagen case because most seekers unilateral act in  g this product without alpha's knowledge is not a sufficient basis on which to establish your stiction as an alpha reaching out to the forum in attempting itself to sell the product there it's the equivalent of in world volkswagen the automobile being involved in an accident in oklahoma when it was purchased from a importer that only imported into new jersey and new york it was a unilateral act of another a distributor and the consumer that brought it to utah united states for research and development only were not the product that opened ultimately reach this consumer there's no doubt that this product came in through a seeker through p c a in violation of the f d a and barros and contrary to all of this knowledge an also be unreasonable in nevada your honors because none of the none of the transactions involved in this case occurred about if she took the drug in utah and it was only her fortuitous move to nevada after she completed taking the drug that leads to her attempt to establish direction jurisdiction there in the supreme court's cold case is instructive on that where they said jurisdiction is on a reasonable in a forum that is selected soley because the plaintiff moved there after the alleged any argument of general or jurisdiction and there's no context in the record sufficient fork to support him all jurisdiction for these reasons the district court's decision dismissing alpha for lack of personal jurisdiction was correct and should be affirmed thank you