close quote that arises where a large transaction successfully completed a contracting party kicked in a normal benefit of the bargain but then it didn't appear if remorse refuses to honor an agreement  in this could i would like to interrupt your presentation on the merits to ask a question about appellate jurisdiction this is an appeal from a decision that granted the summary judgment dismissing the complaint but the counter claim remained pending at the time this notice of appeal was filed correct know this is that correct that was correct that has now been adjudicated and a notice of appeal has been filed on that aspect of the case as well we proceeded with the appeal of this matter under the authority that authorizes entry of an appeal where the only remaining issue is attorneys fees and those that apply where the attorney fees is awarded or as a matter of contract in a counter claim that has to be a certainly we believe so and there was no issue that was presented from the defendant with respect to our proceeding on the appeal at that point but i did that maybe but if if there's no jurisdiction we have the obligation to raise that did the district court enter a rule fifty four being a certification for an immediate appeal you know the district court did not so the and you have authority that says that applies where the the a c award is not a matter of statutory grant but it is a matter of contract that has to be dealt with in the counter climb i don't have that in my remarks for today but i can certainly provide that on the new notice of appeal has that been briefed that has not been briefed we've we've set a briefing schedule for that issue our view of that issue is that that it will ultimately hand what occurs here the separate issue of the amount of you following up on judge pierce's question your position in the other case is that that the result hinges on what we do here in terms of interpretive the contract in either affirming or rejecting the district court's view of it as such cures points out that the fees derive from that very same contract and you're acknowledging that so this is sounding increase and they'd like  a unusually bifurcated appeal that typically would be permitted to go forward without really fifty four b i look forward to seeking some authority from you  week just to make clear our view is that the critical issue in the case really does involve the courts grant of summary judgment we think that issue is coolly improperly presented by this appeal and again based on  relying on in terms of the client and what we have here is a case in which a litigation was presented by developed analytically and factually in the street in the back he took certain information that he had learned during the course of their lengthy personal relationship and based on his own business and his own financial even his own legal background and experience he was able to understand and research and develop evidence that established that one y this is judge carney excuse me prevent it i was struck in looking at the consulting agreement that the language of the agreement is felt would looking you know it's dated july two thousand and twelve and it says consultant agrees to perform and complete the se looking forward to be compensated with three percent it doesn't say that consultant has already performed valuable services in conceiving of litigation and and gathering information and  in consideration of the services rendered to date mr ray agrees to provide three percent of whatever recovery she may ultimately receive end of story it's  that way at all it's it's prospective and it contemplates services that were maybe performed for a couple of weeks but it doesn't have any respect element what your response to that how does that the agreement that was signed reflect the story that you're the narrative that you're providing us the district court certainly decided to look only at the services performed after the agreement and that is exactly the  resulting agreement excuse me that the consulting agreement that they both signed says that all previous communications between the parties are superseded says that this is the agreement but do you agree it's not at all uncommon for an agreement like this to incorporate can be memorialized after initial work or due diligence has been performed and that's what happened here the testimony of mr beck and is unquestionably  is it the case and i write in the impression that mr beck and does not dispute that he step the e mails to been straight lawyers without her permission and contrary to her instructions is that correct he doesn't dispute the authenticity of all the e mails that have been produced sec wrecked let me just completing the response on the part of question you referenced the agreement and the language in the agreement is backward looking actually in terms of the amount to be paid it speaks of consideration for having performed services so that language is in the agreement and the word foreigner and complete arguably also adopt its only untrue partition of the agreement where there were reasonable and conflicting interpretations of critical language and in that sense obviously this case was actually authored by judge hears that decision proves the point that there were critical factual disputes here in terms of the proper interpretation of the agreement makes absolutely clear where there are reasonable and conflicting interpretations that that can't be resolved by the court that has to go to the jury and in this case the reasonable was not the attorney on the matter below i do believe that that claim continued based on the district court's earlier decision and the summary judgment papers that were submitted certainly address the issue of the value of his services so i believe it did consider that issue i mean if your adversary raised the issue in the moving brief  don't see anything in your opposition brief in terms of the value of the services it's our position really that where there was such a successful outcome here and where the the parties had negotiated thirty percent for attorneys who quite literally took the information that was delivered to them by mr the baktun advance that claim and then his motion for summary judgment was always centered on there being no triable issue of fact that her terminations of the six week old consulting agreement was for cause and that had no evidence of the reasonable value of the services he allegedly performed in the six weeks appellants principle opposition to the motion below was that as he does as he argues here that the consulting agreement could not be terminated because it allegedly was quote intended close quote to be non terminable the consulting agreement does not say that and no language of the agreement can be reasonably interpreted to mean that did not even discuss the issue with her even though he suspected that his personal relationship with her was about to end in his reply during a stage seventeen  counsel close quote he even sued missed assessed soon for malpractise as his attorney in this case and judge cote dismissed those allegations  appeal from that dismissal appellant now changes his story to fit the situation just like he claims that the consulting agreement signed on and with an effective date of july attorneys needed to work with him and not the other way around the district court agreed that he was terminated for cause because he deliberately disregarded dr dres instructions there is no factual dispute about that appellant admitted he received the instructions he just did not think he had to follow them one instruction here admittedly did not follow was not to do anything on her case after his terminations on september th two thousand and twelve and yet two years later he secretly met with opposing counsel to discuss the settlement of juries case because he had his own idea of how that should happen and he admits that he made a threat of the public disclosure of damaging personal information and i direct your attention to the reply brief at page ten for that bunny that a personal and sensitive issue for you a cause you would likely become public if the litigation proceeded would not be an uncommon topic of conversation in relation to settlement and it and she and appellant claims here that the jury were to consider whether that was improper of course it was improper he made the threat to disclose publicly to disclose probably something that might be personally damaging which is one of the issues on which he juries counsel vehemently disagree appellant claims as a factual issue that whether he was terminated for cause because he claims he is that he was really terminated for ending his romantic relationship with dr dre what is the district court had previously found that was not alleged in this complaint even as a reason for his time relation let alone the  another example of how he changes his story to fit that situation even wanted to change his admitted data venting their personal relationship which he admitted it was august twenty seven and he wanted to change that to the following as he does in his briefs and this court so that it appears to be closer to the september six terminations the fact is the district court did not wait conflicting evidence on the motion appellant simply didn't the master marshal any evidence and opposition to the motion as he was required to do and respectfully the order should be affirmed thank you ron thank you very much this fits you have two minutes and you thought i'm and so by virtue of what you just heard we have an example of what occurred during the case a lot of vitriol a lot of allegations all of which have been denied by the spurs a back in a case that is permeated with credibility issues since it involves both two individuals that have been broken at a personal relationship but ended it and attorneys who clearly you just heard in their voices were agitated over the fact that  can raise issues regarding primarily the fact that they refused to have any conversation with tom do you look up prior to the filing of a complaint in order to try to determine whether the case could be resolved without years of litigation so those are the issues that exist throughout the case in every instance in the midst of the back in dispute the claim that he was properly terminated the court asked earlier communications were missed to the back that is actively assisting in the case and working with the it turns there is no issue between the attorneys no issue articulated by return until august occurs is further communications between the two of them and then over the labor day weekend a falling out between the two in their personal relationship going back to the language of the agreement there is a reasonable one conflicting interpretation of this agreement that the obligation to pay the fee survives determination of the agreement there is no question that that is the precise language there's no question that a state court reviewing a related case held exactly that and the evidence that was presented by mr beck can reflect with that in conversations with loose assume who was certainly representing jewelry it was discussed that the agreement should not be terminable that the fee should survive in chase there was in fact some issue that is pretty high your time is expired similar circumstances where a contracting party comes in and speeches any kind of venom that they can in order to try to argue that an individual was quote either terminated or just