standards here are the half of the apartment the bank serves as international for the defendant and the underlying actions sometimes referred to as vs side we are here on a case to review and unusual case where judgment on the pleadings was granted in favor of a plaintiff on their complaint for affirmative relief on a claim of a breach of contract oh we believe the district court's judgment misapplied the standard governing motions for judgment on the pleadings and at least two respects i'll get to these  dinosaurs affirmed of elements on its claim for breach of contract namely their element that they performed under the contract the st issue with respect to the affirmative defenses because the standard for dispute from dinosaur d that those affirmative defenses if properly pled and ultimately proven would preclude their ability to receive judgment in their favor on their breach of contract claim or no  was one of the affirmative defenses one of our firm defenses was to stop all your honor which is a form of fraud a misrepresentation yes your honor but fraud in the inducement was not played in the in the answer  counter claim as an affirmative defense i believe that in its ruling on the judgment on the pleadings in this case the district court did consider the allegations that were played in not just the complaint to answer but also  counter climb so i would submit that our allegations in the counter claim which did include fraud can be considered as affirmative defenses in this case the district court  the district court in this case relied upon the standard governing twelve b six motions to dismiss and ruling that our firm defenses did not preclude judgment in dinosaurs favor  certification we did file a voluntary dismissal about i think three or four weeks ago your honor we would concede that that that that makes our nd point on appeal nugent other words the certification issue we believe is no longer at we have no good faith argument to be able to present that the certification argument remains a point on appeal before this court given our voluntary dismissal thank you i was wondering about that  could be raised to an appeal of the final order voluntary dismissal effects of certification in the sense that our issue of certifying a part judgment on one issue as opposed to the other one we can no longer present that to this court but our challenge to the underlying judgment on the pleadings i believe remains a valid appeal to this court regardless of whether or not that appeal was taken under rule fifty four   dismissal of your affirmative defenses and then when the final order issues regardless of what happens on this appeal is that now mo that the chief then certified in april of two thousand and twenty is final is still something that can be appealed to th apply to affirmative defenses from our research we see no d circuit case that has decided this issue we're aware of only one circuit decision in this country that has decided this issue that is the nd district in the g o m case the last are case i believe is particularly on point in this case that's a minnesota district court opinion and in that case the plaintiff filed a claim for declaratory action and the precluded the judgment because they must be taken as true we believe that this court should or should not apply formally to affirmative defenses of the st twamley was decided under rule statement this makes sense that offended isn't given as much time to investigate and develop those affirmative defenses and should be given a chance an opportunity to conduct discovery to do so this is also the standard that prior to yelling into the facts briefly of this case this case involved a international transfer of money whereby a thailand company was going to purchase cargo shipments of oil from head of base which is  venezuelan national oil company that implicates several potential issues under oath faffing f c p a and it in this case we were led to believe from the information provided to us by dinosaur allegations of for affirmative defense of stoppel also fraud also a prior material breach of contract and it in short these these defenses are more appropriately addressed in a motion for summ judgment after the parties have had an opportunity to develop these in discovery and to investigate these claims and present them to challenge those in a motion for summary judgment something something that we feel is important we have authentic to the district court i can't deny here today that those are not authentic but what i will assert is that both the documents as you suggested were attached to the answer to our counter claim we had no opportunity to refute those we did deny the fact that those documents would have any sort of an effect on the dinosaurs claim that they prove their claim and we denied that and we still denied that i think what's important here is the documents in the summary judgment proceeding we could put forward additional evidence today why those documents aren't necessarily sufficient to give dinosaur relief or aren't sufficient enough to preclude our firm of defense and i think that's exactly what happened here documents that a teen was that appendix seventy five before this court was the october th pain in the destruction to my client that included several documents for supporting documents one of those several of those documents actually those supporting documents were written and so it is unclear to us how the district court did or did not translate those regardless we did have an opportunity to challenge the matter with you that we did have an opportunity to put forth evidence that we believe we do have that show that just i did those documents there is additional material information that was not provided my client so it's short i'll save the rest of my time for reply your honour's unless there  banks services accepted a payment request from dinosaur to transfer the funds bank services effort failed to transfer the funds transfer to transmit the fun  rejected bank services re stated reasons for keeping the money in the bad and its money back and services refused and within a few months bannister's sued based upon the contract documents attached and judge granted that bank services ask for permission to really argue and to file an amended counter claim they specifically said they weren't that challenging a ut or wish to amend or respond to the court's decision on the contract claim at no point in the judgment on the the dinosaur that did the bank services ever tried to get any sort of flesh to the bone of just a finding of labels which is all it ever did for purposes of the might be overreaching a little bit when you say that it's an absolute bar i think that now with you if you're honest are you andy for example you could have a situation in which an affirmative defenses plead it but it's insufficient as a matter of law even if you prove the affirmative defense it's insufficient as a matter of law i don't understand bank services to be bringing those types i mean we have a way where we have stopped but we have various others that could be potentially sufficient as a matter of law if they are  so i guess like taking issue with the absolute foreign language you're using when i was while i was that that was more of an introduction but you have proven you have to give not just a label but the basis and the pleading services as well as its response to the motion that imus or may never get the legal basis even for this now as judge  on the breach of contract let's focus on that whether or not there was a clear breach of contract now the nd question is whether or not these affirmative defenses would upset a breach of which all that apply to affirmative defenses i would point to the fact that when you have those situations standard applause ability in terms of placing well let me ask you that so there's a there in my opinion a very well done opinion by judge shelfs from the district of minnesota where he talks about the difference in federal  which says that all defenses require that short and plain statement which exists not just simply for stating claims but also for jurisdiction the that this rule has the language short and plain in multiple places our position is that to have a plain statement you have to give some flash of what the legal theory is you have to and that's and that in fact even you don't even have to apply it all in twelve lee to affirmative defenses under the older standard the fair notice labels were never considered to be sufficient you had to give a basis so let's take the waiver was weighed in the in the in the answer thanks arizona says where they don't say what was way they latches on a complaint that was filed within a couple of months after this all happened what was what the basis is legal basis for criticized factual basis what's the legal basis for say malachy what's the fair  basic pleading standard they got to provide us some notice of what what the paper the claims i write about that i agree with you your honor that we don't have to you don't have to adopt it voluntarily for dinosaur to win this case you have to be sensitive to the context this was a big conglomerate all right and services and something happened i suddenly got his last two out of the blue of course you by not in twenty one it's control person wrote a letter saying we're not giving you a back to your money that has a responded immediately that progresses saying we reject that we want their money back as you suggested dinosaur did not file a motion to strike in this case most of these cases do that these cases that we've cited we started to a number of cases on page nine of our reply brief ten plus cases and footnote to all of which valid affirmative defenses to a breach of contract claim there we go a stop a waiver those do apply to legal remedies such as breach of contract are coward claim also can be construed under rule eight see as an affirmative defense for a prior material breach for fraud in the inducement but we believe that those are all affirmative defenses that precluded judgment on the pleadings in this case they should have been challenged in a rule fifty six motion for summary judgment where we could have put forth documents to challenge the documents the dinosaur submitted to ask the court for time for discovery we weren't given any of those opportunities and your odds were just my time's up here we would ask the court to reverse it if we if we end up losing on then maybe we lose that this should be done on a summary judgment proceeding we would ask the court to reverse the judgment give us an opportunity give us that think or thank you for your time your honors thank you counsel it's a complex case and both of you have done