homes in los angeles and successfully operated it as a joint venture for five years until the relationship fell apart for all the reasons that in the lengthy briefs and i apologize we all want to have at least a level playing field when we are in that forum versus the court which we accept as being a level playing field what has happened in this fish earlier is equal to if you go to arbitra it's a card game and the cards are stacked against somebody who shows up more often than somebody else form wants to play that game so that's what brings us here today the supreme court la this close to the parties any dealings that might create an impression of possible bias then they could sure would be warranted and that is a broad and impressive by line for arbitrator's to follow and monster energy case by the circuit affirmed that belief and that mandate in its decision which brings us to the table here today to see if the district was involved in a monster case same standard boilerplate disclosure was made at the beginning and the case proceeded through its normal process of being over treated and ended up with the district co the law and the mandate of the disclosure by arbitrators to the district court's attention the district court took that issue an account except that the monster needed to be analyzed  ems despite storylines request as tantamount to an actual disclosure of non ownership the monster energy case contemplated a two part test that  the letter that was submitted by jem's declining to disclose ownership of the arbitrator was kind amount to death threats that that meant there was nothing to disclose and submit your honor all the disclosures are pretty straightforward do you have ownership yes or no that would have been the answer but jan's dodge the issue and did not disclose and that this district court unfortunately accepted that shifted the burden to star line to produce this information that was in the possession of the arbitrator that was not disclosed to it started an advisor what's the exact remedy you're seeking that entire arbitration  honor if that was the only problem we had to solve maybe the granting of the motion for new trial to allow starr line to then make or make formally corey and compel gems to produce that information so that trial on the on the issue work and we do something more narrow than that well i think trial maybe is used broadly here because there was never an actual jury or bench trial of some sort of thing i'm referring there in the context of  or of the way this thing came about the judge room was already entered and there is no procedure to engage in we asked for a new trial by setting aside the judgment which would have put us back into a position to ask now with respect to what the point i was making that there are other problems here that are just as they can effect and as we've pointed out in the in the briefs here and i'll be very brief above those and since you're really have them before you just to point out though that the arbitrator essentially ignored sixty years plus d of california law that a partner cannot oust another partner without compensation even if they want to get out of the marriage for good reasons and properly and in this case star presented evidence that d m z had planned before that nd full germination they called to take over the very business of the partnership and run it with without starli and that evidence was presented including evidence that the stain tore with being operated after terminations and the arbitrator this this played of the manifest disregard of the law d by not of flying  written partnerships she did not cite any law that would support or position and merely distinguish the law that was on the books that had to be applied as written and the case of comedy clubs versus impro presidential and the award in the entire process in our view was tainted so we have requested that they get your be complete not to sever parts that are problematic because the whole thing frankly  emotions are real as opposed to coming to us on direct appeal of a decision that  how i agree with your honor i don't know how else i can answer the question other than in my review of the decisions on over tradition by the by this court  the court has actually taken care of making sure the norm attrition award is deferential and holds as much as it can but sometimes it can't so it's been vacated so i think that standard of and the error may be pervasive throughout but i think court has been a very jurisdiction to apply the different standards a different junctures to to come to the correct result so consequently i think we're just well maybe getting at here of a four day arbitration hearing during which time both sides which are both sophisticated businesses both represented by counsel had ample opportunity to present evidence before the arbitrator by way of exhibits and multiple witnesses that were questioned by both sides as a product of that four day hearing the arbitrator prepared a thirty seven dollars page detail decision and that decision was then reviewed and a neglects to mention is that this is now its rd attempt at seeking back a tour of this arbitration award using essentially the same arguments but for monster energy that is before this court as i can i take it to that is i've got to run a quick  cases that were going to be that were going to have to be sent back because of it i mean you recognize that they seem to embrace that and not the dissent but that said recognize that the majority embrace that in shy away from  had trouble with this with the response from jams here because it seems you know the district court judge read the response from jim as saying i got nothing it's cause you know i've got nothing his votes are but that's not what sam so that's a real challenge for me in this case is that the district court judge is reason or its decision seems did i'm having trouble seeing how that fits with what champ actually s then i'm happy to address that judge van dyke and me back up a little bit and you know the way i read monster energy israelis that there are two separate holdings in the case num ber one and this court really just acquired an instance of finding evident partiality and so it held back where the movement seeking back a tour had evidence of number one ownership interest in jams by the arbitrator and number two non trivial business transactions between jams and a party when that information has not been disclosed by the arbitrator that const basically is all about you know letting the party nuts sure and i think there's a bit of a punch in there because i think you know i read monster energy as saying going forward for cases where us are we going to deal with this well for all cases we're going to issue this kind of letter which turns on is it don or not but the problem is monster energy itself actually two things one is monster energy itself actually seems to act like this is going to have some significant and troubling sort of effect on other cases where where the the statue of limitations has run but not just that but if what you're saying is true monster energy would come out differently when of it because monsters the arbitration was over the court was that all this stuff and at the end said yeah has over so it doesn't i don't think the whole thing would have come out differently and that's because again in that instance the party had the evidence without needing to you know get the disclosure from from jams  again there are examples in the in the case as to how a party might go about getting this information but that you know to retroactively apply monster energy to all cases that james has had in the  past really goes against the claimed verbiage of the opinion and it seems unworkable especially in this instance you know we have a an arbitration that was handled by jan's two years ago it's not clear if the arbitrator now i supposed to this flows you know for example if she had ownership interests that she gained six months ago but not during the pendency of the arbitration which way does that cut and i think it just leads to unworkable result i mean the majority and says although our dissenting cawley judge friedman raises concerns about the finality of a recent article it's meant in light of our ruling that's not a problem because this is only going to matter going forward no know parties such as far line where it has an avenue you can now use monster energy as grounds for vaca to are again when they have evidence of the few facts there but i don't think it speaks to what the arbitrators disclosure smart people not to know again i mean i can't speak for exams but it seems quite clear to me under the opinion that in all cases that they now have been going forward these are the things that they need to disclose is there this  question you know they're very very squarely you know and maybe they're trying to hide something or be maybe their lawyers a word or leaving for no apparent reason other than what they do and it seems they would be a complete waste of resources it turns out no there is no interest julie i don't think there is anything that those in this panel can do and there's two reasons to that in my opinion number one again the onus is on starr line as the one sitting back and swore to pursue these options that was an option but that wasn't pursued so you know the burden doesn't fall on this ports and now give star line what what effectively be a th fight of the apple two to uncover something that isn't even there i had avenue that starland could have pursued but didn't the other thing i'll mention is that you know unlike monster energy where there was some kind of indication already of possible evident partiality given that arbitrator's prior relationship with monster energy there's really nothing here at no point has star line pointed to anything in the record suggesting evident partiality by the arbitrator and so you know while i you know i'm of the position that monster energy doesn't require the arbitrator's to have provided these subsequent this flow zhorzh there's just no there's no basis for this you know needle in  but i guess i'm trying to figure out as i think monster energy probably applies to all four arbitrators right so they all said it's a typically it's a lot harder for one of them for not one of them at least have been an owner and therefore trigger monster energy if you have any thoughts on whether or not why the three l it's an all members might not all within the ambit of monster energy you know i'm fighting against myself because my position is that i don't read monster energy as requiring these disclosures but you know setting that aside and i think it would apply to be appeals panel at shands as well as the arbitrator which again painted speaks to is is to make this a retroactive requirement for more substance or funded supplemental disclosures on these two point facts you know again they would only be a suitable for reversal if it's a completely illogical reading and i think the judge is not reading of these verses quick sentences absolutely logical and possible and simply  another interpretation of that shouldn't warrant reversal my brain enough to come up with a weak enough answer but between the conversation with with the court in opposing counsel i got a chance to look at what the remedy that monster actually put on the  table and why that should not be apply here in that case monster how the arbitrators failure to disclose the ownership interest in jim given its non trivial business relations with monster creates a reasonable impression of bias and supports big sure there are traditional or no less here because gems is letter anyone can read it is not an answer so that's a refusal to disclose even when they had an opportunity or not  whatever the reasons may have been we're guessing but they did not disclose the interest therefore they have not made to require disclosure and this is a matter of i'm a trial lawyer of my nature and of here only when i have done badly my strategy was them failing to disclose when they actually did have the you know the in my strategy and they both have the ownership interest and they failed to disclose it that we don't know but i'm going back to the trial business of our part of our business we deal with burdens down here in the trenches i am uncertain the other side has a burden the arbitrator has a burden everybody has a burden the burden of this closure is on the arbitrator not there's not a whole lot you get to say about arbitration at all matters when you're a party d who is who has not done well you know you got the mountain to climb but the one not and that the other side has to climb is if they don't make  this close that's where we make any difference so to hold us tight on the one side of the ledger to say you've got a narrow path for reversing an arbitration award and all the rules are goes with that i think equally monster because the same boilerplate arbitration disclosure was made in monster as was dear so that's the point of talking about it in terms of the remedy you fashion that doesn't really need that kind of a struggle if we pla and unless you have another question on which of my time i used but i'd like to make one more point please go ahead the one thing that's not to be forgotten in all the procedural things that we do is the arbitration orde that was rendered and its core ignored sixty plus years of california law that says a partner that's ousted is not ousted without compensation so c here has been our contention all the way through took the same business and the next day sold the same thing for same take that same cookie and that it was not allowed to do and the arbitrator in herself recognized this very thing in this version when she actually said the agreement does not contemplate either party taking did take the same tort ran the same four plan to do the same thing without star line and did it without compensation and the case for the supreme court left all the way down say fine you can't do it so i want to thank counsel for both sides for their very stimulating arguments on this tough case and you probably win the prize