something far far more serious some dispute over a lease and while it's not unreasonable to expect that a dispute over a tendency would fall within the form selecting clause threats of physical harm but go ahead or sex your religion it can be taken out of context around and that's not part of the record but i'm have to address that if the court would like you know this is a case about access to the court system and if we can get beyond the fact that it's steven seagal and look at have somebody single parent for example somebody that doesn't have the financial resources that my client does of seeing a president in a case where you have to go to a foreign that's correct your honor but when mr seagal sign that lease he never anticipated that if a dispute arose that somebody would pick up the phone and threaten his life in this state and he didn't anticipate that they would threaten the physical safety of the people that work for me as family and the people that he travels with that was a part of the deal and that's what makes this case different his family your honor just to be clear i don't know if that's part of their arc or not but he does travel with his family when he and if it wasn't mr seagal you know what we're basically saying is you have to fly to germany you have to hire counseling through me to have to stop this kind of behavior i mean this is not acceptable and it's hard to get beyond you know some of the other things that were the current status of their litigation here are just for the record i don't know the current status and we've objected to if you didn't notice with respect to action i don't believe it's result and i don't believe that it's intentional infliction of emotional distress is something that could be litigated there but i don't know that for sure and it wasn't part of the record so i don't want to mislead anybody here but certainly the bigger point is should we allow this kind of conduct and if you it's in an interest of the state of california not to allow a small issue that mr seagal should have had a right to present to the trial court below and said what about the alternatives for me elements that are important and in a pariah case that we cited in our brief that amounts to a clear abuse of discretion and in particular they didn't look at the public interest of the state of california to defending its citizens  nature and i think the record on this point is absolutely clear they didn't look at the private interests of mr seagal the system they have to make him fly to germany they have to defend a case where somebody threatens physical safety they didn't look at the public interest of the state of california which i think it's a big one and you don't balance those interests it's a clear abuse of discretion do you think the demands for excessive amounts for damages and by threatening to illegally extort sums by threatening to sue for a reputation and by threatening in him with severe injury d alive that claim as a whole or do you just separate out your one and clause at the end because you've been arguing as if the issue were what do you do with the claim that someone has been threatened with we've put the parties on notice of what our claim is and well maybe we could have done a better job at articulating it at the pleading stage i think we've met the hurdle that  see in other words your honor what we're saying is we're carving out the intent on such an emotional distress and we agree with the trial court here that the other claims are related to what's going on in germany but at end of lease but the intentional infliction isn't phrases which relates to what you've been talking about i understand that your honor and i guess my point is that you know if we were given the opportunity to clear up the pleadings we could maybe make it clearer but we did within that cause of action list several things that amounted to intentional infliction of emotional distress and one of which i think is fair enough to look at here which is what we're talking about picking up the phones threatening people's physical safety and sending letters  the claim of causing damages by this whole series of things one of which is this phone call or do we treated as if this is the phone call is the injury we're looking at in determining the sizes of the action don't we look at the entire crime which is making excessive demand to compensate for damages illegal california and we needed to clean it up we could you know it's the fifth picture here it's pretty clear that somebody picked up a telephone and threaten the physical safety of a movie star and the people that work for him or at least one the court my name is robert try min of a can go from mrs ford will back i was actually going to make five points related to the form flashing clause but your owners have made my first point for me which is that you have to look at least at that whole claim because if a court is pointed out the allegation of physical threats is one of three or four different allegations in the claim point out below they never made a motion to amend that claim to try to strip it down to get out stuff that in its order specifically discussed the claims as led and made a finding of what the claims were based on the claims as plaid and they didn't ask for men down below and they did have a chance to brief us and also point out down below that their briefing on the scope of the class was exactly two sentences long the primary part of their briefing on the farm selection class had to do with the interpretation of whether it was a mandatory or permissive class almost no attention was paid the scope they didn't ask the court to to do what they're doing here saying because true it in a certain way and one reason we pointed out is i didn't know how to deal with the standard of review briefing on here because it seemed like to me what they're saying they want to reach characterize and sort of implicitly and mend their claim to have a history of a certain arbitration clause that has the phrase arising under and but it didn't have the usual rest of the phrase in connection with or or it's comparable related to and the court said humanitarian when you're missing the second part of scenario where clause here were bro than mediterraneans were not arising under arising out of and also we have the second part we have in connection to but the point is that the mediterranean clearly advanced a analysis of looking at the language of the clause and that's  advances and that they apply equally so there's no reason you would treat them differently the reason you'd say that for for such a cause if you look at the language if it's a contract claim but historically just dave doesn't relate to you know the contract and you've skipped over what the claims depends on whether the resolution of the claims relates to interpretation of the contract you know if you did said whether the the form selection closed in this case did it would make sense because that was true and in that form selection clauses on arbitration clauses which are a subset look to the good in every other circuit i've seen look to the language of the class and it really just doesn't make sense that you'd say that you know it doesn't matter what the scope of the c clause meaning any form so much well i'm not sure i understand the point believe me and i wish it were written differently but i think a fair reading of this is that it's dealing with the clause in front of it yeah i don't want to criticize in any way but i humbly believe that they were listening to the case in front of them and i would go on to say that even if even if that is the interpretation which which which which i have to live with it's excessive claims made so even if let me interrupt the jury and i left out what do you think about the district court used to form not convenience i think it would clearly be better for our side if it had been briefed and argued and there's no doubt about it but i think that you plaintiff's home form you have where they've asked a place where the witnesses are all those come into the specific jurisdiction alice and i think the court was entitled in this situation to say that i have all this evidence in front of me i'm making an alternative folding we've also by the way challenge the specific jurisdiction finding you know we with the court basically said a specific jurisdiction is and i say my time is running out is we think these alleged threats of physical harm would be just enough to get over