specifically the district court overlooked the fact that the claims in this case arise out of conduct the defendants specifically directed towards this form which is sufficient to exercise personal jurisdiction over them in the proceedings below both sets of defendants that's mr blumenthal and the one day entity based in israel and the schuster in foundation various related individuals located in oklahoma and maryland move to dismiss corps complaint under both rule twelve b six for failure to state a claim and rule twelve b two for lack of personal jurisdiction the district court in his ruling consider and rejected all the arguments presented for dismissal under rule twelve b six finding the underlying claims were properly play since you mention that mr right it's just wonder if you could enlighten me a little bit about what's the point of this simply jewish charities but charities at any rate and i'm having trouble understanding what trade secrets you could have or how you could be injured by having your trade secrets stolen if that's the right word i an entity in israel trying to do the same thing when one would think that an organization devoted not to profit but to encouraging charitable activities would be delighted if somebody else uses the same good exciting innovative techniques to do the same thing in another country what is the deal here that's a good question a runner and i think a particular the not for profit context of whether or not it's a political to the proprietary information that it generates its relationships with this disappearance in this case again there are a number of technologies that the organization developed that gave it sort of a unique edge as it were or unique advantage that so what why are you competing with these guys isn't everybody in the same ball game everybody's trying to get volunteers to go to work and do these good deeds so what how are you hurt  supposed they solicit the same donors that you solicit they're working in israel you're working over here who cares in this case your honor specifically the the issue became when you ization in this case one day that is presenting itself to the public to the same body of users as again essentially a carbon copy that not hypothetically but actually has had thank your honor specifically in its brief order the district court concluded it could not exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendants because quote neither the tort nor the effects of th work took place in new york that's at a one hundred and twenty two in the appendix in doing so the district court focused almost exclusively on the fact that aspects of the defendant's joint activities occurred in israel ignoring the base in new york they also were aware jake were his activities a long time time presence in new york and its activities there while your presence in new york isn't the point right we know that's if there's anything we know from the supreme court about personal jurisdiction is that  many other courts have considered this issue to consider the accounts as they are associated with the particular entity to be you know the data the underlying data and the context to be considered as that hacking activity being directed towards the location of the unity and other than the hacking activity you say that it was known to one day that a lot of your partizan pinson donors and whoever were in new york is there any wherever located that in terms of these specific new york reference that's further added into the record through an affidavit by mr team in the c e o of g e or yeah but  pieces of evidence directly from one day that demonstrate their targeting you know they had public in a public we announced and were publicly describing activities that they were directing towards the u towards new york or new york based organizations in terms of partnerships and other things is there any in any specific allegation in the complaint or the f a david sore anywhere in the record identifying a single in our nd amended complaint that we submitted we requested leave to submit and subsequently and that that is in the record interim well wait in the in the proposed amended complaint i saw that many of the conclusory allegations have the words in new york executives none of whom are new york persons the porch of the firm the district court's dismissal of the men complain for a lack of personal tourist action as i said none of my clients are new york persons and none of them are alleged in the complaint in any edition of a complaint to have engaged in activity in the york that is relevant to the allegations against them indeed the plaintiff has already filed his lawsuit a new in the northern district of oklahoma where there is general jurisdiction over the foundation but there is no jurisdiction here the only allegations in the amended complaint that concern our client involve three events that occurred not in new york they're not alleged of occurred in new york as we said in our papers below they occurred in israel they talk about us orchestrating a seder dinner for a holiday to the ship and to conferences all of which are in israel as a stray allegation somewhere in the complaint to us once holding events in tarrytown but that allegation is not connected in any way to the trade secrets case the only thing that is connected to new york is that it's happened to be wary tame and jake or the plaintiffs are located and so d it points essentially to its own injury but that is very general in nature seems to be essentially that some of the people who may have attended this seder dinner in israel which was organized in israel may have come from new york or have been people whose new york residence may have been known to the foundation or ringback to one day but that is not purposeful of their own it doesn't say that our client entered the jurisdiction to do anything  here the the notion that if you have an event and people from new york attend the event you can then after its action even though the event is not in israel i mean there is not in new york but in israel and even  specific allegation d about what was done to target or solicit was this done through contacts with people in the or was this done through people from the foundations visiting new york was it done through agents and other organizations to be or none of that is alleged here and this is a an oklahoma foundation that sure as the plaintiffs says in his nd i'm in the complaint there are some people in the york who also travel to israel that are interested in issues of jewish fall in for a but it doesn't seem that that targeting those without explaining what was done and how it was done should be enough to bring someone into court in the org the connection to the jurisdiction so if they could have explained i suppose what they meant by targeting you know i could give a more substantive response but the targeting just leave putting a post on social  media targeting means sending an email blast to different people in organizations and saying if you're in israel and want to celebrate to be sure they're not please come with us and and meet up they never say what actually we did to target and that's the effect here with respect to personal jurisdiction and they've had their multiple chances to explain what we actually did what our connection is to new york and michelle what was the purpose is there an shot as i understand it is a holiday to celebrate the need for or at least how it's been observed in recent years sort of environmental care taking and so my understanding based on that is it would have been people who want d to meet and talk about ways to engage in you know environmental care a consistent with all non religious and religious motivations to to engage in that i don't think there's any profit making with your well they say they don't allege it but yes that's what they say your honor in the complaint they don't allege however you know how this was done or what was said or whether  we did anything that actually changed the future for jake or as opposed to just having an event and people showed up and some of them were from new york that that's essentially their allegation and they say they were in new york as a result of this and harmon new york is is not enough the the the action that they're alleging when they talk about targeting and recruiting is very where we've explicitly said this but it seems fairly obvious that's a standard applies when you're assessing a twelve the two motion on the face of the complaint that the allegations have to and volunteers in new york were somehow affected but the affidavits provided by mr blumenthal show a couple of important things most importantly that one day and women tall never had any intention of harming j or in new york or at all mr fish and if we're going to consider these affidavits and turn this into a fact issue we could do that but then i suppose it's a summary judgment motion and then we've got competing affidavits and we've got something other than what the district court did we could also or the district court could have limited jurisdictional discovery and then have a hearing and resolve factual differences between mr blumenthal and jake or as to the various facts at issue but i thought that the district court handled this basically by saying the complaint is insufficient isn't that right well your hon that we'd be applying at that point well i think in this case i guess i'm not sure that that that the district court specifically said exactly what was relying on just the allegations or the affidavits but i would say that in this case jake or just to correct one statement that mr wright it's made they talk about sort of establishing partnerships with new york entities mr blumenthal make clear that what that's about as they allowed new york groups such as birthright to  bring people to israel and they give them an opportunity to volunteer in israel and i think you know i take it it's not a trade secret that someone interested in sponsoring jewish volunteerism in israel would contact the birthright people in the organization yeah that's correct your honor and that actually leads to another point that even if birthrate is a new york organization and there's some relationship between one day and birth rate that allows birth rate people in israel new york in israel to participate in one day events at no point is jake or alleged including in the nd amended complaint that any trade secrets were used in order to forge that relationship so there's really no even if that's some kind of very thin new york contact there's no allegation that it's connected allegations that somehow jake or standing was harmed in new york unclear how that could have happened again they don't name any specific volunteers they don't name any specific donors it doesn't really make any sense everything that one day and women so there's a there's a threshold issue of whether or not the attempt to amend the complaint was proper which is addressed in their briefs jake or asked him in the complaint at the end of their brief they didn't actually provide district court found even if you take the nd in a complaint to it into account it's insufficient it's insufficient to state a claim and the same jurisdictional problems exist because again there's no dispute that everything that one day and women did that's relevant to this case happened in israel and any allegation that new york donors or new york volunteers heard about it and somehow were disappointed in jake or it speculate it was good news or even even a jake or volunteers heard about one day i mean even if they chorused the operating after two thousand and thirteen which is a big question but even if it was and they still had volunteers and they're in new york and they fly to israel to go do something with one day there's no allegation that they stayed there and never came back i is different language used under those two standards but it's essential both count and in this case if the case is permitted to go on if my clients have to come defend themselves in new york it's going to be fatal to one day it's going to you know in light of the unprecedented impact that the has had they're going to they're going to have to close their doors i realize that's not the record that's me speaking based on the conversations of my clients but i think it's important for the court to know that and that's relevant to the jurisdictional analysis under both enderby carol but i was not in the record  we should just take your word for it and it's important for us to weigh that in yeah i know what is on the record what is in the record is that there is no international company no engagement in international commerce which is a requirement of the long arm statute ok and i was if that's that's the thing that's that's that's where i thought you were going mr fishman is that under the new york statute you would have to derive significant revenues from interstate commerce even if you cause defects in new york and it's not clear to me what that even means in the case of a not require that sort of a similar analysis but yes donations from the met you know even american donors and donors elsewhere don't don't count as international congress certainly not substantial international congress and that's basically what this court s from the united states the new york court of appeals d found that the doctor referrals d which is something valuable don't count as commerce so it's clear commerce is buying and selling goods and my client is not profit it's just doesn't do that so the g spent most of the not all their time you know addressing the souter dinner you know certainly that was the thrust of their briefs as well is to focus sort of exclusively on the activities that they conducted you know but by all admissions you know  in israel but what they don't address and what the district court we believe overlooked was the fact that you know a substantial part of the those activities also involved and again that's for mr blumenthal's relationship with of them promoting those activities not just within israel but specifics in new york whether it's to recruit new york participants to recruit new york donors to recruit new york you know partners or prospective partners that's also where what do you establish that either of these entities derives substantial revenues from intrastate or intern national commerce with respect to one day the  is substantial revenues from interstate or international commerce that's correct your honor the what is it revenue from commerce that you're relying on with respect to one day that would be several things number one there are documented partnerships have that we have cases in new york saying that commerce means buying and selling things is that even apply if this partnership does not buy and sell things yes we've we've said in our brief i think one of more pieces where the new york courts applying the new york long arm statutes to civically note that revenue in and of itself is not an indicator is not the be all and end all of commerce because you can if let's say you start a company may be losing money it may not be but can be involved and substantial commercial activity can be considered successful of by by many but the question is whether this is commercial activity is an that's that's  that says that a nonprofit soliciting donations constitutes income from commerce case law like i said your honor does address the issue of dollars you know a balance sheet and of itself doesn't tell the whole story about a balance sheet i asked about solicitations of donations or receipt of donations by a not for profit that does not engage in buying and selling i'm not familiar with a specific case on point i am i also will note that the case in new york know that this issue in particular is one that has to be resolved in discovery because on this issue of a bit of business is internal working of the revenues that something that an a party the other party on the other side will not be privy to without discovery ok i think i understand your position  just to to return for a moment to the hacking claims again that is something that we've noted all the case law that we've cited all the case law that i'm i'm for miller with fines that hacking even when it's day in the brief can't say i can't find a single authority to support the suggestion that foreign hacker hacks into the united states or into the new york in this case should be immune from jurisdiction in the allegations to be clear in terms of let's say be the trade secrets that were obtained subsequent activities but know the issues from in front of you she is not alleged to have been involved in the hacking i should know by that something i learned yesterday know no one pushed a button that said that you know the way sometimes happens in collective bargaining negotiation that when stopping the clock at six seconds before midnight i think that's a