can deals with the places where this judicial authority will be exercised and the court there you can said that typically a court will address personal jurisdiction first and then move on the venue to the extent that seems on do given they can in addition to the usa the case that you're honest direct to the parties to review in order to prepare on the issue of and personal jurisdiction in the case as well the the court distinguish between personal jurisdiction and then you and of particular importance there the court stated that to the extent the defendants had any challenge to then you know it's recourse was to challenge it under the venue statutes service would allow you to bring up state law crane in just about anywhere you want it and it doesn't seem fair as a lawyer and i believe that much of that was addressed in the in the doctrines of and of personal jurisdiction in those cases as well saying that if there is one constitutional case then really the federal jurisdiction allows for hearing of the state l well i believe your honor just based on the doctrines that we've been directed here to know that if there is personal jurisdiction under the any trust case and there is there will be personal jurisdiction and state law cases if they had chosen to challenge for failure  it not be additional burden and would not wouldn't open up and he wouldn't open up a crack in the entire area of the service of process since if you light utilizing national contacts and they went to the old international to minimum context on the fourteenth amendment well i believe this the citation to this case is really not appropriate to say you must have you when the standard was used but you sort of elevate that proposition to say that rather than personal jurisdiction becoming moot you must satisfy then you teach them a chain personal jurisdiction via the clayton act seems to go too is a corporation and i guess argumentatively would fall within section twelve quite now i try to find a case addressing the issue of professional corporations and whether there is a distinction factor and exercising jurisdiction over them i could not find one but i think it stands to reason if you have a law that is not licensed to practice law in the state of california slices of practice law in the commonwealth of virginia doesn't practice law anywhere else bill video addresses the question of the fifth amendment constitutional due process and i submit that in this particular case because my client is limited to virginia his activities are limited to virginia the venue determine where a venue is just to be situated right when you don't first determine whether there's jurisdiction are you putting the cart before the horse well i'm i'm not mr justice callen but i certainly think the was in my analysis under go video that the question of fundamental fairness and due process under the fifth amendment and compassed is the question of venue and i would submit that absent the antitrust claim and the analyze whether it's fundamentally unfair given venue requirements both under section twelve the general venner statute to determine whether it's fundamentally unfair to exercise personal jurisdiction in this particular case imagine i've never seen a case where you determined personal jurisdiction based upon what the venue should take it reasoning seems backwards it does but in terms of the amendment due process if you're going to exercise nationwide service of process and compel someone for from the commonwealth of virginia to come out here to california you have to do a full analysis and that includes whether the venue is appropriate or most prosecution action in the state of california where all activity center in the commonwealth of virginia and i disagree with counsel to say that this is the same operative facts one the first cause of action is for restraint of trade exactly what's going on the nationwide but we're talking about you know corporate fraud there as opposed to conspiring with a because firing with your client to violate the antitrust but is there a reason why you did not make firm that is not capable of transacting business in the state of california i'm not thinkable in the sense of not capable under it's lawfully and the animal behavior is different from having actually done something now course i'm saying as an abstract statement i am no way terms of the analysis what drove what activities do that law firm direct against the state of california why not really suing corporation that's this based in california one of the other corporations that's some that sounds like an idea that sounds like an argument was designed to involve professional corporations or its walcot reversed had been a partnership the plaintiff would not be able to exercise jurisdiction corporation he did that may chose not to be a partnership they could be a corporation but that goes back to the arc of their professional corporation and allowed to conduct business where in the commonwealth of virginia they're not licensed to practice what anywhere else and i'm like a regular corporation that can transact business throughout the united states so long as it has the appropriate license or you know they they tie in with a local law firm put a cloud over appliance to obstruct it from obtaining future contracts and in addition to just doing the suit or filing the suit rather that there were several other contacts here which were directed towards