about four minutes of my times they are a bottle before you start i notice the judge phillips is muted and he might have a question so let's start again in fifteen but and there's good reason for that they conduct their business in wyoming they're registered that business smiling they have their principal place of business and wyoming and a majority of their owners and managers were there in fact families live there for generations is not subject to the jurisdiction of the court in wyoming or for that matter any court in the united states we contend that this cannot be the proper result and in fact mr gately contacts targeting no way only n c s i'm more talking about color and describing that in calderon like in the walls in case you have a story that relied on california's sources was focused on finance activities in california the nature of the let's tour involved defamation that would have reputational impact in california and they contrast that with walton who could have suffered the set precisely the same harm wherever that that those that couple was at the heart of los baucus to the money whether they were in the battle with the encounter or knew whether they were and that the it's not really clear to me why your the wyoming entities as you call them are not similarly situated to the plaintiffs in walden in the sense that wyoming wyoming thank you for the question i do think well then is in fact english civil and the fact here it strikes me that that case talked a lot about the chair as you say at the seated with the that that couple could have suffered exactly the same farm with that implicating any interest related that was unique to the best in the so the question again that i'm asking you is what is it about this connection implicates why only because the wyoming and cities as you call them seemingly could have suffered that same harm anywhere without implicating anything unique to y o me contrast that with calder which set all of  physical operation like the plaintiff and the pm the new some cases they may not be engaged in sewing fabric in a shop like the they undoubtedly have their operation in wyoming and simply because their operations are less tangible does not mean that they are not center here well what that's it that's an interesting point that gets the next question i was going to ask you purposes purposes of this factor been announced as why doesn't the nature of the business matter and you keith out yes exactly the nature of those two other businesses and they are in there was clear there was an impact on the form had the fact that your clients you know have their principal place of business in wyoming says nothing about the fact that the court would have any you need impact on wyoming apart from their presence there which walden tells us really should not nothing should turn on the president's per se of the point that i am the place thank you judge i would just turn back to the fact that it's the nature of the tort here that and the financial loss that is alleged that is significant that's what i want to touch on very briefly you say financial loss and in the reply brief to say that the transactions nine million nine hundred thousand dollars over time individually made that he initiated initiated the transfer of funds from wyoming as that pleaded and is that in the record that in fact the money that was sent the money that controlling and voting member of the team seventy lp and the majority of members lived in wyoming so this is an investment decision making business the decisions were made and they see a good voted upon in the state of became the single largest investor group and extended significant loans to the company on the solicitation of the founders including mr jason well not resent it from from the point of view of the why would he think he's dealing with wyoming without going to the corporate records and seeing where something's incorporated he don't primarily with the family member in florida he might have copied on e mails people in my own the he didn't come to wyoming the just just from his point of view with maybe a little surprise to see that he subject to being killed in the court in wyoming or standards review on this sort of thing are you saying that if someone could infer the necessary facts the necessary understanding by the defendant and that's enough or doesn't the district court is in an empowered to actually make findings regarding these things and decide what the facts most reasonably suggest your premise that it's enough that he knew that there were in wyoming if there if there was no uniquely wyoming interests implicated by the transactions and in addition to walden what i draw your attention and respond to that question is in one circuits were two major decision which we talk about and do the cost a new song in which you have this this business you know using the terminator information where were they they court said yes the senate probably i mean the plaintiff probably knew well the defendant probably knew that swartz nader was in california knew that's where he was but that's what wasn't the focus of what the defendant was trying to do he's trying to boost his business where in whatever state he was so is this your premise that it's had enough i you did a great job of laying up these instances in the bri which could lead to be imp jason i guess is jason knew that this that the wyoming entities were based in wyoming but is that enough full stop you know it's not enough judge and that's why we have cases in which a principal place is described circling back to the language as a mere four to eighty when asked the only thing connecting the defendant's conduct to the jurisdiction and why that all we have here when going back to the point nature of this house really may matter here why isn't that all that we have here but the mere four to eighty that they set up shop in wyoming lovely state that is why why why does why does that matter oh well i'll give you some time for rebuttal but i want to pursue the question i asked earlier because i hadn't thought about it before and i notice in your brief you say that we take  point these facts can be disputed and the result the judge makes findings on those facts and that those findings would determine whether or not this person is is this just a temporary thing and if we decide this because we construe certain facts in your favor as not well stay with that jurisdiction what happens in the future is it strange to say we're making the defense decision based on facts and we just have to assume everything you say is true that's that's not the situation for for subject matter jurisdiction i know now and there are no allegations that the money came out of the lease that what i'm reviewing now came out of wyoming and i would direct the court to the florida case and take a look at  kennedy's affidavit and how that and the court's personal jurisdiction order and the award of the money based upon what was a legend damages by the kennedy entities the candidate kennedy entities were parties to the florida action and so i think it's your question of where the finances are where was the harm you know where were the harm where the were the where was the loss i think florida is where it's already been alleged that's how the that's how the kennedy entities had to argue in front of the florida court to overcome the calder test where did the brunt of the injury occur the rd element and if they've alleged there and burn their powder there then it goes to will to your point will how can they have suffered a loss here in wyoming due to two things to tease out of that one wasn't paul kennedy didn't he claim that he personally to judge holmes to your point you know yes paul kennedy was a an individual in that case as well because he had separately loaned or invested or something into croup as well and so not only paul kennedy but the kennedy entities were all seeking damages in the florida case which they obtained through a default judgment after the court rendered a rule that there was personal jurisdictional over those parties in florida my nd question not have been person jurisdiction theoretically over mr jason perhaps in florida or what what or let me change that question why we could not beat a case that there was personal jurisdiction both in florida where and  in wyoming at the same time i mean you could theoretically if in the course of this transaction at contests there were sufficient for both places right you know that's an interesting question and really the responses to the towards the argument of the appellant's and their citation to the th circuit's opinion and all foods you watts you know for the proposition that a business entity may both be located and suffer injury in more than one form and in that case you know that the th circuit explained that you know the principal place of business could could be where the harm occurred it could be in another place and it went through the analysis as to where  foods us suffered that harm and ultimately ruled in california and what the appellants did not cite though in their brief was the qualifying conclusion in dull foods in that the th circuit stated the principal place of business of dull food us in california and all managers in california were induced to approve the interest transactions under these circumstances we find that told us suffered jurisdictionally sufficient economic harm in california because of the separate express any requirement or holding that goal suffered economic harm in california does not mean that the form in which a corporation has its principal place of business will always have personal jurisdiction over foreign defendants but when a plaintive corporation has its principal place of business in the same for forum toward which defendants expressly aim their acts the effects test permits that form to exercise personal jurisdiction and so we look at the th circuit case that makes sense and how they concluded without qualifying language because than to the next point judge holmes we go back to walden and walden teaches us as the court and series while that teaches us that personal jurisdiction  interactions with the point of known to their strong connection with the foreign state so here all we have is that nd prong of the call their test and the facts alleged in the complaint are the in the complaint and the jurisdictional discovery that's been that it all that it stablish is is that the kennedy entities had a principal place of business in wyoming that's it there's really nothing more to connect jason's alleged conduct that occurred in switzerland is breaches a fiduciary duty in gross negligence to krupa swiss based company that those were purposely aimed or the focus was wyoming but to go into the heart but i'm asking i wanted to  and i think i understood you but i want to be clear you aren't suggesting that that there couldn't they couldn't express leaning their conduct both the florida and wyoming float the fact that there is perfectly brown found in florida is not a gain changer to regardless there has to be perfectly simple states rights oh and done it off there was a bank shot and it was going to you know colorado here i guess it would be a double you know two baskets trying to shoot in both hoops or it could be a left leg up in  right way a bank an offical or you don't get don't get too far but i know what i'm going to saying you're not it's not it's kind of it's kind of that thing of maybe there could be but the bottom line is that there has to be allegations  or well put flax and evidence that establishes that there was a focus of the actions and both in a number of states and here there isn't in wyoming but there has been alleged in florida and this raises another point judge hearts you know you had mentioned the well pled facts what do you have to take it on and i would say to your to your opinion in in x mission where you've stated that we must accept  true the well pleaded that is plausible not conclusory anon speculative facts alleged in the complaint unless there controverted by sworn statements so when we apply this principle along with the other apple goal principle principles part of the standard of review the allegations in the complaint that can be considered well pleaded facts and the evidence provided through jurisdictional discovery do not establish that mr jason purposely directed his activities at the appellant's in wyoming and that the  injuries arose out of mr jason's alleged formulated activities and i would for instance i would cite the court to pay just one dollar through sixteen of the kennedy entities brief listing out alleged actions in the complaint concerning the loans and other subsequent investments through which they attempt to connect mr jason to wyoming however sever the allegations of facts they say concern there are parties such as mr robinson roberts and mr berar and paul kennedy and another example is on page thirty seven dollars of the kennedy opening brief where they state jason had a close relationship with the kennedy energy brothers he does undisputedly knew of paul's residence paul being florida and he worked closely with c e o robertson who undisputedly knew of peter's residence and it's this type of dependence on rd parties to connect mr jason to wyoming that makes it so important for the court to study the citations in the kennedy entities briefing in the allegations in their complaint i think about where those have been given given given the nature of their allegations of torture his conduct why is that entirely surprising because i mean part of their allegations reach a producer of duty is that he had responsibilities but remained silent in other words if he saw that their parties were ripping off the the kennedy entities or wyoming entities whichever phrase you want to use and he stood silent and he knew he knew they were in wyoming he knew they were being ripped off he knew and to their allegation he had  duty to save no stop why is it surprising that their rd party actors involved and yet he acknowledged that would link him to the conduct that was going on in wyoming well i think we have to go back to precedent and we can go back to and it's you know it has to be the actions of the defendant himself not of their parties not of the plaintiffs and so i think that was true with just sort of a case where you have misrepresentations that are  alleged and the defendant here being part of the parties who are benefiting by slighting intellectual property behind our back and work in concert with mr robertson can he really just isolate himself off and say oh me only me when it was this group activity well i think i'm trying you know it's hard to dissect that from precedent that i'm i believe firmly says that it has to be you know we have to look at the affirmative conduct and contacts of the defendant himself most about but i would go back look at the whole i would go back to the whole grouping of these other folks they were already sued in florida  based on the same contents and within all was the main contact with the skin and so if we look at it from a group standpoint you know they've already been sued in florida but now we can take those same facts based on their conduct that is berar in robertson and graft that on to jason here in wyoming and replace paul with peter because peter lives here in wyoming and that's enough for minimal contacts and well that makes that goes back to point point that theoretically there's no there's no harm you could have contacts in both forms you know jason's it were sponsibility is that he did not act  when he had an obligation to do so then you've got a situation in which he knows what they're doing and know this wall didn't you know despite the fact that of general principles that apply here the factual situation while new is dramatically different than what we have here and the nature of the client mr manning so shouldn't aren't we driven by both i mean you have to accept the fact that the business context matters here but you also have to accept the fact the client matters right correct yeah and i don't i think you skins like the focal point of the alleged horton growing bird was ecuador where the oil field is located and where concerned zero was injured when ecuador allegedly counsel plants and sessions in this case the focal point is mr jackson's alleged breach of produce year and use in gross negligence in switzerland where jason was working for crew as it c f o and where the alleged injury occurred when mr jason committed the alleged torts torts group you know it when we look at  injury was in colorado even though they said well our principal place of business or it was in ecuador even though our principal place of business was in colorado and so you know in response to those arguments the court explained that a principal place of business in thinking the court for its time in consideration concerning this case for the reason set forth in his brief in history discussed today mr jason respectfully request the court affirm the wyoming district court's dismissal of appellants claims due to the absence of personal jason personally i loan documents to a wyoming not a florida lender showing wyoming address and big warning notice requirement in wyoming obligations to repay the wyoming and i cite the individuals working in concert and the judge the district court judge found that mr jameson was the quote primary practice in the alleged wrongdoing for these reasons we would respectfully ask the court