case the facts of this case are that we follow a motion for leave to amend and it was fully briefed and we waited several months for the citizen who was only one of the decision was render to denied a motion for the first was a final disposition of the entire case it wasn't just the disposition of that motion there wasn't a live case left after that most there was no way they could hear that there was no way i could share it and let me also say your honour's as a practical matter the more favorably considers a bot to request reconsideration in a year and sorrow i didn't consider there to be any good odds to succeed in trying to move for reconsideration of a decision that dispensed with the entire case with tendering of the fee i just didn't see that it was a practical use the rules of the cave with respect to any of the additional classes that you were pleading would have added they only dispose of the cases i case was because there were a breaches evidences of discovery abuse that had happened and we wanted within that same spot to be able to show from our problem or what happened sort of a history of the dealings between the parties while it was true that certainly could have been don with reference to an earlier follower refiling had on we thought it was the appropriate action to try to cure this and the fact is that there is case law that supports the notion that the the ability to eat or grant the motion can they go and if they really want to have a process in which they have they required the pileup to be at the time of the motion in case they granted it would that be something that you would be would miscible in other words the problem yes i mean if the key can be uniformly there with no dispute that every time they're confronted with this the at the same way then it becomes a practice to which i wouldn't disagree that deference is required the problem i have in this  something we file on the very last page there was an email from mr moscowitz to me to me which we were discussing certain aspects of this case and what he said concerning this cancellation proceeding it is well insured f b i my client on the basis of that decision that they made mr mosque with his client actually did fall off a petition our notice of opposition against our two allocations when they were all the proposition that was on december sixteenth two thousand issue number nine one one nine zero five two and sorrow we believe that's one of the reasons why we want to continue with you to hate this because if you're honest i'm sure have seen what our  have not seen any case where a trademark registration was cancel on the basis of all the fraud proven in one class but i think it could in the end it really doesn't matter what your money abuse or what his motives are or what he not rather than dismissed it i mean that's part of the reason we've got to be here because you say you can't fix this up you can't file this motion tomorrow again with the company stop at the point we're saying the word should at least have dismissed this without prejudice to give you an opportunity to come in tomorrow and filed the exact same motion accompanied by the three hundred dollars is that