involves an order by the district court dismissing crept towards claims for a lack of personal jurisdiction and specifically on the second prong of the jurisdictional analysis the court  the in the district court before getting to the issues that the parties disagree upon there are a fair number of things that there is an agreement upon one is that both sides agree that the standard of review here is did novo also that there district court in puerto rico that's where the parties where the parties agreement and we submit that there's the factual record that was presented here most importantly shows that there was contact and from that initial contact there was a series of collaborative and iterative communications and interactions between both a so and private tours and here the contacts  specific to the actions were specifically puerto rico anticipated that as we know that the fact that you contact somebody in a jurisdiction does not itself satisf what is the difference between the two cases because what they knew what we would have to do would all be done the puerto rico in order to organize the trips through all of them in florida there's no way that the florida agency can book me trip in a destination this is far more this was far more involved in the respect the right of than just calling a travel agent and booking a flight they knew is the second problem is you have to anticipate that there will be substantial activities in the form which intensity is absolutely of is absolutely irrelevant factor is relevant it is absolutely relevant because you have to anticipate that they're going to take substantial actions within the forum which in that case if you're in florida again you're not in the subject form here this is much more involved than just booking a trip to each room of old or if you call the florida agency you haven't reached into the you haven't reached into the subject form and in that instance it's much education cultural immersion trip it's very important that i say that this is involves not just the lodging which he did in calling hotels which he did here in puerto rico meals for one hundred fifty at least people transportation again here slightly instead it's a local knowledge of fours and not it goes back to will you now it's not random or fortuitous to be sued in puerto rico when you've taken all of these steps you've contacted the travel agent in puerto rico because of their local knowledge to book the cultural immersion excursions again that would be much more difficult to do with someone in florida so it makes it much more much less likely here if you contact someone in puerto rico and you undertake all of these steps you get all of this work product from them you communicate with them you say ok or the only thing left is we're going to wire the deposit the next day and then you decide that you're not going to go forward we found in instances that that's not random it's not fortuitous and it doesn't offend our notions of justice and fair play here everything all of the activity happened in puerto rico they contacted the service provider in puerto rico so when they decided to not proceed forward they should not have been surprised hotels we gave them a series of itineraries and this wasn't just they called us we sent them some information and that was the end of it we it was a collaborative effort the record shows we sent them the i ten or it is great but we would like a specific number of matches we want to yes actual hotel the actual itinerary day with the hotel day by day almost hour by hour actually of what they were going to do we were going contemplated we would be with them twenty four hours a day it had the dates  had the flights the hotels or block there was some communication about the urgency that you need to book it because we're holding blocks of hotel rooms they sent a list of all the players by the time they sent off our roster was two hundred fifty to two hundred fifty two people were going to travel so it was a large it was a large undertaking so we say in today's in today's commerce this case is consistent with the way that this court has found that modern business is c shows i would say that it's not so random in fortuitous to be held in to court to puerto rico that this wasn't something that they were merely exploring that they may do but in fact it's consistent with our view that the group is absolutely going to go to puerto rico  that when when they did ultimately do it they should have been surprised that the agency that in the company that they had jilted in favor of the local california entity was going to sue them so i say again it does i your honor because the case was dismissed discovery we certainly believe someone out of that faith basis for saying so but that hasn't been developed yet as to the extent to which they took our information and proceeded with it but we certainly believe that they did use much of what had to so volunteer in my other life in south florida and what these defendants did unlike in downing unlike in postcard this is a one and done dating procedure for the purchase services this is not a four year employment agreement like downing where the out of state company hired denning in the form state worked with him paid him dealt with them for four years on a continuous and systematic basis and then say whoa we don't have jurisdiction in the form state this isn't like coast guard to employment agreements not one two and the second employment agreement was fourteen months into the agreement and only one coast guard actually succeeded in that case in doing what he was employed to do but the company the out of state company which had setup a local sales office no less than the form state the out of state company just didn't want to pay him his commission basically said look unless you cut your commission when i've been going to fulfill the contract that you made those are cases where it's foreseeable to be held into court in that jurisdiction where you have a bunch of volunteers who have done nothing other than seek bids for a one time trial this is not a continuous relationship this was never going to be a continuous relationship there's no evidence to suggest it ever would have been anything beyond what it was we have a bunch of kids who are going to spend some money on a soccer truck they feel like going to puerto rico this time do the kind of work that would be necessary to put together a bid for the world cup which you would probably assume would be a lot of work if it's just the bidding process in and of itself and then there's no contract form i would say that's not purpose because all they're all they're doing is soliciting beds from in this case probably all around the world which is probably what fisa does that i can't speak to that but i'm sure that's what they do so i guess but i don't fully gra type thing i'm asking you to do a bunch of work in that jurisdiction to put together the bid for me now if it turns out there's no legal claim that one can bring then obviously you're not much risk of being sued there but if there is a claim for how you did the wor the question of whether you should know that there is a minimum contract at that point seems like you would want to look at well how much as my agent were asking you to do in that jurisdiction if i was asking you to do a lot defendants knew that there would be such this enormous amount the work that crept towards this claiming i mean you know they utilize the florida agency to book the airfare they clearly have soccer games there's no record evidence that they booked a field or that or that anything was done relative to that frankly and relative to one of the questions earlier i think constitutional due process requires that you look at  jurisdiction for each defendant and what each defendant do i think we can all agree that a why of so as a national organization did literally nothing region twenty four just literally nothing not to mention it doesn't exist it's not a legal entity so you have fo volunteers volunteer dads are moms two of them does a literally nothing until the last day of the chronology february twenty fifth where they very professionally and politely in response to crept towards e mails of hey we still volunteers this would have a tremendous chilling effect on getting any more volunteers effort is simply telling of an unsuccessful vendor that we chose someone else is enough to make us have to fly around the country or outside the country to defend ourselves from a plane like this no one's ever going to volunteer for anything mr jackson did literally nothing in this jurisdiction he sent the one email to the to the florida travel agency which apparently was the one booking us our board our volunteers need to go through this with a fine tooth comb those are all the contacts that occurred here i humbly suggest that it's crystal clear that it would be more than mildly unreasonable to expect these volunteers that they had somehow injected themselves into this jurisdiction for purposes of having to defend the lawsuit or thank your honor just because you're the director of organization clear it's not in the record but that every individual defendant and this isn't the record as a volunteer and if it was eight executive director who made contacts you could make the same argument i would be making the same argument i think there is a distinction however for jurisdictional purposes and fairness principles between a volunteer who simply trying to organize a trip there that would be part of the factors of reasonableness burdensome to the defend mails and i didn't resign every single one of them this morning obviously and and it's all in the record but these e mails collectively are basically look we're letting you know there's three and that's our producer responsibility by the ira dealing with kids money so we were where we have to did this out that's the responsible thing to do we want to make sure we provide the best experience for the kids so we have certain situations develop and then of course i meet and then of course we say before we can decide we need this information and then the other parties who did actions were then well some of them may certainly have been you know lateral actions because they never reached the point where a contract was formed they never reached the point where their bid was approved this was and from this was a an informational exercise of attempting to get information for a trip that we might use with park tours or someone else and then we're going to compare the bidding only thing they allege that speaks to that is their claim that they were not they meaning press tours was not told why the decision was made not to used up the claim for pre is true remotely true but moreover given the opportunity to present declarations under jurisdictional issue because it's the plant this burden to prove jurisdictional issues against each and every defendant if any of this was accurate they certainly had every opportunity to put that in one of the declarations they did not they simply said we don't we weren't told why we weren't the  absolutely wrong but the issue of if it's not a latch i think i understood the question to speak to the allegations of the complaint and what were the contact i don't fully understand what your point is you have to just make those those were not unilateral untac they were only undertaken at the request of requesting party as an agent when they over the the unilateral nature of it is the extent that they now have been by virtue of being let's just say an overeager seller or better they clearly wanted the contract and perhaps they did significantly more than they were asked to do in order to maybe succeed in getting the contract but there's no evidence for example that they set up one soccer field there's no evidence that they said one soccer game there's no evidence that they that they attempted to do any of those things there's no evidence of these multiple hotel accommodations they again this is a company that that they themselves claim are the experts that they've done this hundreds or thousands of times they put together an