no evidence of causation to show that the wrongs that the jury found sinak committed because the two hundred twenty five thousand dollars in damage the arguments here when i look at excerpts of record page a weapon as a settlement agreement and mutual release it has paragraph one consideration and there are three sentences in the paragraph virtually all of the argument has focused on the second sentence where i am for sealants in act i agree they teach our frame from doing things that they're not allowed to do anyway so that runs you right into that california law looks to me like it's an anti tax torsion law that it's an illegal contract for people to agree that they will do something that they're not allowed to do anyway i will throw first sentence and the third sentence are different the first sentence has an agreement to file mutual requests for entry of dismissal with prejudice of the complaining cross complaint and the third sentence as an agreement to create an atmosphere of endeavoring in good faith to prevent bad things from occurring and neither of those is a promise to do something to refrain from doing something illegal at people are perfectly free to go on with lawsuits and they're perfectly free to create a nasty unpleasant that mos probably right that the second sentence doesn't have any promises except to refrain from doing things that are illegal anyway i thought and i didn't find your brief that persuasive that he was wrong on that  but i couldn't understand why the case wasn't all about the first and third sentences and just saying put in context that second sentence is part of the agreement it's not the whole of the a that i know you're not getting what i'm getting at what i'm getting at is supposed to go back in conference and i say it's a legal agreement because there's no obligation to file have dismissals of lawsuits and there's no obligation to create good faith atmospheres so it's a legal agreement it's not just to refrain from illegal thanks and then my colleagues say to me but that's not in the blue grief drafted by sign and that was the offer that was made to supplemental excerpts of record twenty seven of the original your remedy in that case if there was a mistake in the part maybe to rescind the agreement i don't whine we go back and the settlement but just because two parties sit down and agree to an illegal contract you know that doesn't get you a pass under california law the contract illegal in an unforeseeable it's a matter of public policy c i'm still trying to understand what would your a member of the right that's relevant to the claims you're making here you'd have to bring it under the not illegal part of the contract if if you lose on the second sentence the parties agree steal sine i could have gone to any that's contractually illegal yes well that's an example of interference which is you're doing business with these guys but we're better you know we're we've got better in four years we've got better experience you should come to us and we'll actually give you a price discount if you do but under this i'm sorry i don't we don't have to decide in this case whether that would be our legal proof or some other reason absolutely i guess still should have been given the opportunity to make those allocations by way of an amendment and then is it's a contract through refraining from things that you can't do anyway and but your interference with women is a contract to refrain from things that you're that both parties are allowed to do and are entitled to and that you're not allowed to agree to refrain from it's kind of the opposite of saying i won't throw bricks through a window it's more like saying you know maybe we'll have to go decide that but you'd have to come up with something that you could represent to us would be permissible under california law and you don't seem to know what california law says about commercial entities getting together and dividing customers and fixing prices and doing the other side not to be able to do and all you've come up with is a hypothetical about talking to the club customers and saying don't do business with our competitors or misrepresent to do with list representing it's different because he can't misrepresent anyway and that's the problem of illegality of the contract what would slip it in your favor is that the interference part of the agreement is not an agreement to refrain from illegal  legal interference some kind of interference or legal harm or illegal yes and what we want to do is the opportunity to allege the breach of the agreement by which floor c on the lanham act claim and at that point the judge just charged the jury and asked counsel to prepare pleadings related to the equitable claims and gave him a motion date and so on the floor the talent failed to submit and interact with cory related to the special verdict and the seventh circuit said that amounts to a waiver of your of the hard right to obtain a ruling the difference pillay and our case though is in the lane that was the legal claim and in fact on appeal that the parents argument is i have a constitutional right to a jury trial on my claim for money damages in the court of unfair competition law the court went over jury instructions and i made a statement if there's anything else parties want please submit an instruction i don't understand the way you would need a jury instruction on a c interference of human or paragraph one  this stage of the proceedings and on this record respectfully i don't believe this court can look at the evidence at the trial and say there is or is not evidence of a predicate claim that's something for the district court to determine in so you are not seeking under your unfair trading claim relief you know any sense under the lanham act that's absolutely correct ok so now you're saying ok now the facts that we put into show jury the husband or the wife and they have a jury on the contract when in order to get a divorce one of the other of them has to show in compatibility of temperament neither of them puts on an iota of evidence not a scintilla of evidence about fifteen to fifteen looks like were you saying there wasn't any evidence if they lost the two hundred twenty five thousand dollars because of the breach of contract i agree in that but in your high play you would expect that the plaintiff to say ok your honor when do we get to present our evidence on equitable issues and in this case the record is pretty clear that forcefield made no effort to do that went along with the schedule where it agreed the u c l remedies and you haven't given me anything and that's i think the larger proposition here that the district court should be affirmed that there is a waiver when you just strictly do not put any evidence and you make your bed you make trial tactical decisions about little bit about the interference when i look at the you know argument is there can't be a breach of contract remedy because it was an illegal contract the reason it's an illegal contract is it was a contract to refrain from doing things that the law where the required the parties refrain from doing at california statutes say that that's an illegal contract in so doing they c has these three sentences virtually all of the consent decrees that i see whenever we see a consent decree much of the consent decree consists of promises to refrain from illegal acts at by themselves they'd be meaningless but when i look at this promise the promise is a whole is supported by consideration one consideration it's just that if i think that sentence out of context all by itself and for the moment ignore the interference for that there is no consideration why isn't that sufficient to make the judge's ruling erroneous  speaks to those things and st paragraph i think they're tied together here but i really don't think the issue is number one they're all quite in it's part of the consideration practice ok now it's like that's your answer on that alice talk about interference there are some kinds of interference hires a salesman is likely to have a covenant not to compete these are restrained by the law that's not entirely illegal with adequate boundaries their legal likewise when somebody sells the business to somebody else there's typically a company not to compete in a covenant not to interfere with the buyers business sometimes they're too broad and they're illegal as a matter of public policy sometimes they're not too broad in their legal  some things do some don't and your adversary never got a chance to amend and present proof that they had some illegal interference that have they could sue one under obviously worked very hard to get this right to put up under forty nine ages so i don't i don't really see where that means anything i mean what the case was was you made you put stuff on the internet and called their customers and told them force you were a bunch teachin crooks and to the extent their product is any good it's sign x product and then let's say the last time that happened was five years ago and you've been litigating ever since but then you when you when the lawsuit sign actually executives might well take that as a lesson any we can do that stuff let's start doing it again and they want an injunction to say no don't do it anymore because the standard well your honor t six listed items amount to your legal consideration then the court should have given a floor seal read to a man two if you will include in the rest of the consideration there are two other senses in that paragraph especially the third one would support a claim for breach of contract i maybe don't want to because i don't know the industry technology but it looks to me from the record as though the litigation expense in this case most likely exceeded the potential profitability of the transactions that might be prevented or might be engaged in it looks like the litigation expense was probably disproportionate to the potential profitability and that when that's so often mediation is useful would it be useful for us to withdraw the case from submission per a period of time so that you can consult with your finance and determine whether they wish to attempt mediation of this dispute particularly if you do get to remain for anything the checks are going to have to keep coming