[00:00:00] Speaker 02: May it please the court, Brandon Orweiler, for appelling Kevin Galassia. [00:00:05] Speaker 02: This case asks a straightforward question. [00:00:08] Speaker 00: You're a little quiet. [00:00:09] Speaker 00: Can you move the microphone a little quiet? [00:00:13] Speaker 02: How's this? [00:00:14] Speaker 00: That's better, I think. [00:00:15] Speaker 02: This case asks a straightforward question. [00:00:20] Speaker 02: When a foreign defendant takes financing from a California resident, hires California personnel to build its product, [00:00:29] Speaker 02: enlists California residents to market it and sells it directly to California consumers, must it answer in California courts for claims relating to that business? [00:00:42] Speaker 02: This court's settled precedent holds yes. [00:00:47] Speaker 02: The district court reached the opposite conclusion by making two fundamental errors. [00:00:53] Speaker 02: First, [00:00:54] Speaker 02: The district court drew adverse evidentiary inferences against Mr. Galasio when the prima facie standard requires the opposite. [00:01:03] Speaker 02: Second, the court ignored this court's settled precedent on virtual contacts and fixated on the fact that defendants never physically entered California. [00:01:19] Speaker 02: On the first point, respondents answering brief raises various [00:01:25] Speaker 02: factual disputes that are highlighted throughout the record. [00:01:30] Speaker 02: Fixating on whether participated in a sale constitutes purchasing or selling. [00:01:38] Speaker 02: At record sites 51 and 52, and 56 and 57, Ms. [00:01:44] Speaker 02: Diep and Mr. Song, two purchasers of defendant's products, testified that they participated in both public and white list mint sales. [00:01:53] Speaker 03: So those are among the contacts that you mentioned at the outset. [00:02:00] Speaker 03: But I'm having a little trouble understanding how the claim here arises out of or relates to those contacts. [00:02:09] Speaker 03: I mean, the contacts with the customers. [00:02:12] Speaker 03: What does the claim have to do with the customers? [00:02:15] Speaker 02: Well, if you look at Mr. Galazio's declaration, that's at record site 157, Your Honor. [00:02:22] Speaker 02: The key property dispute here is ownership of the business. [00:02:27] Speaker 02: And one of the core claims that Mr. Galasio raises, which is another way the district court erred by fixating on only one set of claims, is a right to the royalties that are the proceeds of sales to California residents. [00:02:43] Speaker 02: Taking a step back on the blockchain, this royalty function is [00:02:48] Speaker 02: programed into it such that sales to those California residents and secondary sales by those California residents would accrue royalties. [00:02:57] Speaker 02: All of the commerce in California resales everything related to it is at stake and directly bears on the profit interest that my client has a right to. [00:03:09] Speaker 02: Ford v Motor Company indicated that the arises from or relates to standard holds that it need not be [00:03:17] Speaker 02: directly causally related. [00:03:20] Speaker 03: And do you think that would be sufficient? [00:03:22] Speaker 03: So if your client were like the defendant, also a resident of the UK, but everything else is the same and you've got these business and California customers and all that, would there be personal jurisdiction in California? [00:03:38] Speaker 03: I want to make sure I understand. [00:03:39] Speaker 03: Everything about the case is the same except that your client lives in the UK rather than California. [00:03:45] Speaker 03: And in this hypothetical, he's being sued by. [00:03:47] Speaker 00: No, your client would be suing, but so I think in the hypothetical, your client would be in the UK and the internet communications would have happened while he was in the UK. [00:03:59] Speaker 00: But for some reason, he would try to sue in California over the ownership and royalty interests. [00:04:05] Speaker 02: Well, I think that would that would be under a different line of cases where we dealt with a saw he where we have situations where we have complete foreign dependence, like we have a foreign plaintiff and a foreign defendant on both sides of the question. [00:04:17] Speaker 02: And I think that's dealt with under a different line of cases. [00:04:20] Speaker 02: That's not an issue here. [00:04:21] Speaker 03: Well, [00:04:23] Speaker 03: I guess the point of the question was whether it is or isn't an issue here because you just said all of these contacts with the California customers and the businesses in California and all of that supports the exercise of personal jurisdiction. [00:04:39] Speaker 03: And so I was trying to get at whether you think that all of the stuff you had been saying was sufficient if you didn't also have the residency of the plaintiff being in California. [00:04:54] Speaker 02: I think I get what your honor is saying. [00:04:56] Speaker 02: I'm not trying to dodge your question here. [00:04:58] Speaker 02: If I can answer it a little bit differently. [00:05:00] Speaker 03: Well, I think the answer is either yes, that would be sufficient, or no, it wouldn't. [00:05:19] Speaker 02: I would say no, just off the cuff. [00:05:24] Speaker 02: But I would say that the reason that doesn't matter here is what we're dealing with when we're looking at personal jurisdiction is always a sort of totality of all the contacts. [00:05:35] Speaker 02: And we have to look at everything and see whether we meet a threshold and surgically extracting one of those is, I think it makes the hypothetical a little bit complicated. [00:05:44] Speaker 02: But I think that that hypothetical, even if it turns out the other way, doesn't mean my client loses. [00:05:50] Speaker 00: And do you think briskin is your best case here? [00:05:55] Speaker 02: Yes. [00:05:56] Speaker 00: So, um, I think you could use briskin to support your answer to Judge Miller, I think, because briskin is a lot about a client in California or a plaintiff in California with this internet conduct where the harm arises from the internet related conduct that where the injured person is in California, which I think is what you're trying to say is the same thing that happened here. [00:06:18] Speaker 02: Yes, your honor. [00:06:19] Speaker 00: Um, there is a difference here though, I think. [00:06:23] Speaker 00: So in briskin, [00:06:24] Speaker 00: the injured plaintiff didn't even really know that Shopify was doing these things to his phone and his internet conduct. [00:06:35] Speaker 00: Whereas your client really affirmatively sought out this relationship with a business that was overseas and not in California. [00:06:45] Speaker 00: Do you think that that matters? [00:06:47] Speaker 02: I don't think that matters, Your Honor, and the way I would frame it is [00:06:51] Speaker 02: Mister glossier as the record demonstrates may have reached out 1st via twitter but taking a step back the project was broadcasting itself on twitter and Mister glossier reached out made contact after seeing it and after their personal relationship had flourished over a few months. [00:07:10] Speaker 02: It was the defendant that first asked for a loan from Mr. Galasio after knowing he was in California and decided to create a continuous ongoing contract, which has been found sufficient since Burger King v. Rajevich. [00:07:24] Speaker 00: So do you think that this, I mean, so in, in Brisbane, there was the plaintiff in California, not really knowing even that any of these things were happening to him until later, he found out there were cookies on his phone and these privacy violations he was alleging. [00:07:39] Speaker 00: Your client was, I mean, new. [00:07:42] Speaker 00: It was sort of a back and forth. [00:07:43] Speaker 00: It was a relationship between someone in California and someone overseas and a company overseas. [00:07:48] Speaker 00: So was the injury, would the injury also have been in England? [00:07:52] Speaker 00: Like, or also in Hong Kong? [00:07:54] Speaker 00: I mean, is it in all the places or is it only in California? [00:07:57] Speaker 00: How do we think about where this happened? [00:08:03] Speaker 02: Not knowing how English courts decide their personal jurisdiction rules and how that law applies. [00:08:09] Speaker 02: sort of reversing it, I think with the nature of the relationship and it crossing these forums, it's a reality of modern commerce over the internet that if the shoe were on the other foot, it would have to be bilateral. [00:08:23] Speaker 02: There's that continuing ongoing relationship from it. [00:08:25] Speaker 02: I think that on the facts of this case though, we don't need to go that far or even consider that because there were overwhelming California contacts that there weren't present in UK. [00:08:36] Speaker 02: If you were to balance it on a scale, there's one co-founder in the UK [00:08:39] Speaker 02: There's one in California, but there's California employees, there's California marketing, there's overwhelming California sales that at the end of the day, tipped the scales towards jurisdiction. [00:08:52] Speaker 02: I'd like to reserve the remainder of my time for rebuttal unless there are further questions. [00:08:57] Speaker 00: Judge Gould. [00:08:59] Speaker 00: Okay, thank you. [00:09:09] Speaker 01: Good morning. [00:09:09] Speaker 01: May it please the court, Patrick Delahunty for Appellee's Harris Bin Zafar and Project Ether Limited. [00:09:15] Speaker 01: Your honors, the first point I'd like to make is that this case, I think, as the court has pointed out, is a founders dispute. [00:09:22] Speaker 01: It is brought by a California resident against a UK resident in a Hong Kong company doing business in the UK. [00:09:30] Speaker 01: The gravaman in the dispute is very simple. [00:09:32] Speaker 01: that the California resident loaned money to the company and has not been paid back the way that he wants to be paid back. [00:09:38] Speaker 01: It is not, by contrast, a case about the use of a website, consumer purchases. [00:09:45] Speaker 01: Those are not what this case is about or the action is brought on. [00:09:52] Speaker 01: And as a result, the controlling case and most on-point case is Pico versus Weston. [00:09:57] Speaker 01: It's very similar to the facts here. [00:10:00] Speaker 01: It is a case [00:10:01] Speaker 01: brought by a California resident against a Michigan resident. [00:10:05] Speaker 01: The California resident, they formed a joint venture. [00:10:08] Speaker 01: The Michigan resident would do all the work outside of the forum. [00:10:13] Speaker 01: The California resident, other than providing money, would also do some marketing and sales work in California. [00:10:21] Speaker 01: And this court found that that was not sufficient to hail the Michigan resident into California. [00:10:28] Speaker 01: It's squarely on point. [00:10:29] Speaker 00: So we have Briskin, a recent en banc case that's really in this area of law that you didn't really address in your briefs. [00:10:36] Speaker 00: Can you address it now? [00:10:38] Speaker 01: I can. [00:10:39] Speaker 01: Thank you. [00:10:39] Speaker 01: I didn't address it. [00:10:40] Speaker 01: It was held or handed down. [00:10:44] Speaker 01: Well, I think it was decided before your brief. [00:10:47] Speaker 01: So let me address why it's not, I think, apposite. [00:10:51] Speaker 01: Because that case is brought by the user of a website. [00:10:54] Speaker 01: It is privacy claims. [00:10:56] Speaker 01: The allegation I think the courts in the courts earlier questions acknowledges turned upon whether or not the use of the website affected these California users there are cookies put on their phones their phones can be tracked by shopify shopify was selling into California had. [00:11:12] Speaker 01: third party relationships with other vendors in California, but it really turned upon the use of the website by the consumer and these digital artifacts being placed onto the California resident's phone. [00:11:26] Speaker 01: There's nothing like that here. [00:11:28] Speaker 01: This is not by a consumer. [00:11:29] Speaker 01: It's not by the user of the website. [00:11:32] Speaker 01: It's not about how the website affects commerce or individuals in California. [00:11:38] Speaker 00: So why does that matter though? [00:11:40] Speaker 00: I mean, the actual claim [00:11:42] Speaker 00: isn't really what the jurisdiction is about. [00:11:44] Speaker 00: So here we do have a California resident alleging that he was interacting by computer with your clients and was injured in California through those interactions. [00:11:57] Speaker 01: Why isn't that like briskin? [00:12:08] Speaker 01: It is impermissible under this court's holdings, starting with axiom, to look only at the defendant's contacts with the plaintiff. [00:12:17] Speaker 01: It is the contacts with the forum. [00:12:20] Speaker 00: And there are not... Well, I mean, Walden says that, but in Walden, the conduct was outside of the forum. [00:12:28] Speaker 00: So when you're talking about contact with the individuals from the forum, when they're outside the forum, that is different than [00:12:36] Speaker 00: Contact with the individuals from the forum in the forum that becomes a contact in the forum and that's what we have here Isn't it? [00:12:42] Speaker 01: I don't believe there are any torts directed to anyone other than the plaintiff and under Walden it is the [00:12:50] Speaker 01: the actions being directed into California here, the torts all occurred outside of California. [00:12:56] Speaker 00: If just how do we know that when there was a, I mean, there were communications between someone in California and someone in England or Hong Kong. [00:13:04] Speaker 00: How do we, how do we know that that didn't happen in California? [00:13:08] Speaker 01: The allegation is that the tort happened in a meeting in California, in the UK, that there was a ongoing sending of money happened from California, right? [00:13:20] Speaker 01: That's the formation of the contract. [00:13:21] Speaker 01: That's a contract claim of purposeful availment. [00:13:23] Speaker 01: That's not the tort. [00:13:25] Speaker 01: The tort claims are different in the formation of the contract and where it was formed. [00:13:30] Speaker 03: The tort claims include a fraud claim, right? [00:13:33] Speaker 03: And part of the fraud claim is that the plaintiff was fraudulently induced to send this money and he was sending the money from California, right? [00:13:45] Speaker 01: But under Walden, it must be more than the defendant's contacts with the plaintiff. [00:13:51] Speaker 00: But that's because those plaintiffs were in an airport outside of the forum. [00:13:56] Speaker 00: What this plaintiff is in the forum when the contact happens. [00:14:01] Speaker 01: That would always be the case if the suit is brought by a California resident and it has to be well not not if the California resident is in Massachusetts when the problem happens But if the California resident is in California when the problem happens, then the contact is in California I would ask the court to look at the Walden decision at 780 federal third 1206 where the holding is that there is [00:14:23] Speaker 01: There must be express aiming in the towards beyond the towards only connection to the state is the plaintiff's location. [00:14:28] Speaker 00: Right, because in that case, those plaintiffs, when the incident that they're upset about happened, they were in an airport somewhere else. [00:14:35] Speaker 00: So and then they tried to go home later and sue from home. [00:14:38] Speaker 00: But the conduct happened somewhere else. [00:14:40] Speaker 00: So the court says you can't use the fact that you're from somewhere to sue in that place when the problem happened somewhere else. [00:14:47] Speaker 00: But our problem in this case, allegedly anyway, was from someone in California while at least a lot of it while he was in California instead of while he was in airport somewhere else. [00:14:58] Speaker 01: That is the allegation. [00:14:59] Speaker 01: And I would submit that there has to be. [00:15:02] Speaker 01: an effort to target California beyond the planet's location here. [00:15:09] Speaker 03: Suppose we have one of these people who claims to be a Nigerian prince and sends the email asking for money. [00:15:16] Speaker 03: And he sits down and he thinks, well, a lot of people in Hollywood have a lot of money. [00:15:22] Speaker 03: So he gets a list of studio executives and he sends an email to one of them and says, I'm a Nigerian prince, send me money. [00:15:30] Speaker 03: And he stops after one email because that one is a success and the person sends him some money. [00:15:38] Speaker 03: So he knew that the person was in California and he chose them and sent them an email and got money from them. [00:15:44] Speaker 03: Can the victim of that fraud sue him? [00:15:48] Speaker 03: And suppose the sender lives in some foreign country. [00:15:50] Speaker 03: Can the victim of that fraud sue in California? [00:15:55] Speaker 01: I would say under that hypothetical, yes, if the defendant knew that the victim was in California. [00:16:00] Speaker 03: Isn't that basically the allegation we have here? [00:16:03] Speaker 03: I mean, the defendant knew before any money changed hands that the plaintiff was in California. [00:16:10] Speaker 03: And the allegations in the complaint are, and it was a different kind of fraud, but the allegation in the complaint was that this was a fraudulent scheme to get the plaintiff to send money. [00:16:20] Speaker 01: So when looking at this case as a whole, and the personal available and purposeful direction are not always running on two separate tracks. [00:16:29] Speaker 01: There can be a conjoined analysis as to the reasonableness of hailing the defendants into court here. [00:16:36] Speaker 01: And if you look at the whole picture of that, it is the plaintiff seeking out the UK resident. [00:16:42] Speaker 01: It is the plaintiff forming a Hong Kong company. [00:16:45] Speaker 01: That operates in the uk it is that same plaintiff saying I want all disputes about how we run this company There is a founders agreement. [00:16:53] Speaker 01: It's not executed, but it is probative of what they wanted They did not want to be in california Until all of a sudden it was beneficial and that so what the fact that it's not executed though is a real problem for you I think isn't it like how do we use a? [00:17:09] Speaker 00: just a draft of something as evidence of intent. [00:17:13] Speaker 01: I think it would be dispositive. [00:17:14] Speaker 01: We wouldn't be here today if it was executed. [00:17:16] Speaker 01: But I think that doesn't mean it's not relevant. [00:17:19] Speaker 01: It was drafted. [00:17:20] Speaker 01: It was paid for by Mr. Galasio. [00:17:22] Speaker 01: It was not objected to. [00:17:23] Speaker 01: He said it was a good idea. [00:17:24] Speaker 01: He looked at three drafts with the same language. [00:17:27] Speaker 01: It's a fact this court consider and the lower court also considered. [00:17:31] Speaker 01: It does show the party's intent. [00:17:32] Speaker 01: Did they anticipate being hailed in the court here? [00:17:36] Speaker 01: Did they avail themselves of California? [00:17:38] Speaker 01: No, they did not. [00:17:39] Speaker 01: They sought to avoid California. [00:17:41] Speaker 01: That's why it would be unreasonable to hail them into court here. [00:17:46] Speaker 01: It is not consistent with fairness to bring them here when they were trying to avoid California. [00:17:57] Speaker 04: Judge Gould, if I could inject a question, please. [00:18:02] Speaker 04: Is the test for minimum contacts [00:18:06] Speaker 04: different for contract cases versus tort cases. [00:18:14] Speaker 01: I believe this court recognizes that there are two tests for torts and contractual claims. [00:18:22] Speaker 01: But there are decisions within this court that acknowledge that they are not always separate. [00:18:28] Speaker 01: But the key difference in the contractual claims, Your Honor, would be the purposeful available and looking at how the contract is formed, the intent of the contract, and the actions of the parties and the effects of the contract. [00:18:42] Speaker 01: Here, those are the points I just made, that this was a contract formed outside of California [00:18:48] Speaker 01: That was not anticipating consequences here that the behavior of the party sought to avoid California on those claims. [00:18:58] Speaker 01: I also submit. [00:19:01] Speaker 01: that the district court did not err in finding that the defendants had met their burden to show that it was unreasonable to hail the defendants into court here. [00:19:09] Speaker 01: Those seven factors all weigh heavily in favor of defendants here, some of which are not contested until the reply brief. [00:19:17] Speaker 03: There is, as you correctly say, the third part of the test about whether it would be unreasonable. [00:19:26] Speaker 03: What is the best, are you aware of any cases where we said that the first two prongs were satisfied and personal jurisdiction was not present because it failed prong three? [00:19:40] Speaker 01: Not off the top of my head, your honor. [00:19:43] Speaker 03: My sense was that it happens very rarely. [00:19:45] Speaker 01: That's my understanding too, your honor. [00:19:47] Speaker 03: So what is it about, assuming, I mean, we'd only get to this if we disagree with you on the first two prongs. [00:19:55] Speaker 03: Assuming that we disagree with you on the first two prongs for sake of this question What is it about this case? [00:20:02] Speaker 03: That's so extraordinary. [00:20:05] Speaker 01: I think this case that thank you for the question I think this case is extraordinary in the sense that there was an effort all the way through to be outside of California and that each one of these Factors that kind of comes back to that [00:20:15] Speaker 01: The on the first factor, if this court does find purposeful available or personal direction, I think it's a minimal finding. [00:20:24] Speaker 01: That's not enough under the first factor. [00:20:25] Speaker 01: There's got to be more than just minimal contacts. [00:20:28] Speaker 01: The burden on the defendant is large here. [00:20:30] Speaker 01: They did not want to be in California. [00:20:32] Speaker 01: They are in the UK. [00:20:33] Speaker 01: That's where the business is. [00:20:35] Speaker 01: That's the second factor. [00:20:36] Speaker 01: The third factor is that. [00:20:39] Speaker 01: This is a foreign nation, not between two states, which does weigh more heavily in favor of the defendants. [00:20:45] Speaker 01: I think there's the fourth factor. [00:20:46] Speaker 01: This case is a little unusual as well. [00:20:48] Speaker 01: I think California has very little interest in adjudicating basically how a foreign company runs itself, particularly when this company was formed to avoid California. [00:20:58] Speaker 00: Well, doesn't California have an interest in protecting its citizens from fraud though, which is what the allegation is here? [00:21:04] Speaker 01: I think those claims are not the gravaman of this dispute. [00:21:07] Speaker 01: In this case, it's really about the investment of money and whether or not it's been paid back. [00:21:13] Speaker 00: California probably has an interest in protecting its citizens from having contract violations too, right? [00:21:19] Speaker 01: I think that would be true most of the time, but here this contract is about the formation of a foreign company, how it's doing business, and informing it, these two people clearly [00:21:32] Speaker 01: Indicated they did not want to be in California court. [00:21:35] Speaker 01: That's why it's different. [00:21:37] Speaker 01: I think if this court looks also just efficiency And I would say also in this case. [00:21:42] Speaker 01: I think it's important here that the plaintiff Until he filed suit did not want to be in California courts. [00:21:48] Speaker 01: That's the difference They were making there's there's a really a typical unusual effort to avoid California courts in this case [00:21:55] Speaker 01: Which makes it. [00:21:56] Speaker 00: Sorry. [00:21:56] Speaker 00: Is the, um, so I know you have this draft agreement, but, um, we're really at the motion to dismiss stage. [00:22:01] Speaker 00: Do we know anything about the drafting history really of that agreement? [00:22:04] Speaker 00: Like who, who wanted which clause and how it came to be. [00:22:07] Speaker 01: There's no evidence of that in the record, but there is evidence that, uh, Mr. Glossier thought it was a good idea that he did not, there's no evidence of him objecting to it. [00:22:15] Speaker 01: There are three drafts that all look the same. [00:22:17] Speaker 01: He acknowledges he paid for its drafting. [00:22:20] Speaker 01: Um, they hired a Singapore based company to draft it. [00:22:25] Speaker 01: That's all undisputed. [00:22:27] Speaker 01: It would be more efficient here, fifth factor, to have this case in England. [00:22:31] Speaker 01: I think that's pretty straightforward. [00:22:34] Speaker 01: And then six and seven, those two factors are a little unusual in this case. [00:22:38] Speaker 01: They were not challenged by Mr. Galasio in his opening brief. [00:22:42] Speaker 01: They're essentially waived, and there's almost no argument in the reply brief here. [00:22:46] Speaker 01: In the seventh factor, no argument at all by the plaintiff as to why other jurisdictions would not be [00:22:54] Speaker 01: suitable alternatives. [00:22:55] Speaker 01: These factors, I think this case is unusual in how heavily and consistently all seven factors are in favor of the defendants. [00:23:03] Speaker 04: Council Judge Gould, if I could ask you a further question. [00:23:10] Speaker 04: The answer to this question is probably irrelevant if there is no jurisdiction. [00:23:20] Speaker 04: But does the record [00:23:23] Speaker 04: as it stands now, give us any evidence about why the contract was not honored. [00:23:35] Speaker 04: The verbal, the verbal, that is why was the loan not repaid? [00:23:42] Speaker 01: There is no evidence as to why it was not. [00:23:45] Speaker 01: I think at the time of filing, it had not been repaid. [00:23:48] Speaker 01: There's no evidence that it had been repaid. [00:23:53] Speaker 04: Okay, thank you. [00:23:54] Speaker 01: Thank you. [00:23:56] Speaker 01: I would submit unless there are further questions from the panel. [00:23:58] Speaker 01: Thank you. [00:23:59] Speaker 00: Thank you. [00:24:01] Speaker 00: I think we still had about six minutes for rebuttal. [00:24:13] Speaker 02: My colleague when he was up here said the tort happened in a meeting in the UK and that it was a UK business. [00:24:23] Speaker 02: But that fundamentally misstates the nature of the business and ignores the reality of internet commerce. [00:24:30] Speaker 02: The tort did not happen in a meeting in the UK. [00:24:33] Speaker 02: The illegal recording that was mentioned happened in a meeting over the internet where there was one party in California and another party in the UK recorded that in violation of California law. [00:24:45] Speaker 02: That's what is alleged. [00:24:46] Speaker 02: That's what the evidence shows in the record. [00:24:49] Speaker 00: Could you speak to the three drafts of the unsigned contract? [00:24:52] Speaker 02: Yes, Your Honor. [00:24:54] Speaker 02: My colleague made a point that I'd just like to address overall that the draft agreement was financed by my client. [00:25:02] Speaker 02: Everything was financed by my client. [00:25:05] Speaker 02: And none of that money was given back. [00:25:07] Speaker 02: The argument and the logic taken to its extreme with that point is that because my client was defrauded for financing the whole project, that we can point to an unsigned, unexecuted contract that he didn't agree to, didn't consent to, and has no way [00:25:24] Speaker 02: ignores this court's precedent and approaches absurdity. [00:25:28] Speaker 00: It does seem that the parties contemplated Hong Kong though as where they would be interacting. [00:25:35] Speaker 00: What do we do with that? [00:25:37] Speaker 02: Well, I think Your Honor hit the point earlier where there's no evidence of any drafting history in the record. [00:25:42] Speaker 02: If we're going to get into the weeds of that, there's nothing in this record and this court's precedent at the prima facie stage would require inferences to be drawn in favor of my client on that point. [00:25:54] Speaker 02: not against him. [00:25:59] Speaker 02: This court got it right in Briskin, which is a case that my colleague has no answer to. [00:26:07] Speaker 02: He brought up Walden again, but footnote nine of Walden expressly notes that that holding does not apply to virtual context cases. [00:26:17] Speaker 02: And it's a point this court got correct in Briskin and it's a point this court should note here as well. [00:26:27] Speaker 02: My opponent also brought up the idea of needing something more to target California, not just a plaintiff. [00:26:32] Speaker 02: Again, evoking the idea of differential targeting, but that was squarely dispatched within Briskin. [00:26:37] Speaker 02: We don't need that here. [00:26:39] Speaker 02: The district courts relying on it below was not correct, and the court misapplied that law. [00:26:44] Speaker 02: Unless this court has any further questions, those are the points I would like to hit. [00:26:50] Speaker 00: It looks like now unless Judge Gould, do you have any questions? [00:26:54] Speaker 04: No questions. [00:26:55] Speaker 04: Thank you. [00:26:56] Speaker 00: Thank you both for the helpful arguments. [00:26:57] Speaker 00: This case is submitted.