values very explicit well i think i may turn back for a moment to the defendant or the response of the appellate moving papers in this matter where the court may be aware that the contract through those entities have no remedy under ninety one may be barred in the ninth circuit i would i would say the nine hundred eighty one claims in the ninth circuit would would be no more because most people do case a nonprofit low income housing developer in massachusetts super discrimination when it was disallowed water access parts development on the basis that black people were going to live and the first circuit recognized the corporation standing and said that a person has an implied right against any other person who with who with a racially discriminatory intent interferes with his right to make contracts with nonwhites so essentially what other courts and circuits are saying in granting standing to corporations and under nine hundred eighty one is that those corporations are asserting their claim based upon the any particular contract for work was breached by sun thus service agreements zero four six one zero nine nine five and one four six one zero six nine six are not directly related to the claims made in the complaint i believe that was an error and i believe that finding alone required the court to give the plaintiff an opportunity to tell it how the sun breached those agreements and how those agreements can be separate cause of action for breach of contract four hundred sixty one which is a contract does not that does not contain an arbitration provision there was also allegations of discrimination under forty t claims and breach of contract claims and i don't think on this record that the lower court certainly and this panel can find that and i believe that the plaintiff needs an opportunity to file an amended complaint to show that just the court again why discrimination claims and breach of contract claims can arise out of court hundred sixty one cannot be related to fourteen seventy seven and can survive in our motion to compel arbitration and i believe that there may not be there is not a finding in this record that precludes that possibility and i believe the liberal rules of pleading and the rules of twelve and six require such a result and i'm go about that in this appeal and i think it's somewhat prejudicial and unfair for sun to attach as a request for judicial notice the subsequent procedural history of this case when it was further mishandled by plaintiff's counsel when it got into arbitration the question is should it have been sent to arbitration in the first place without one more bite of the pleading apple the right to amend go ahead and i just don't think it's fair to look at what happened in the arbitration when it's not part of the record and it's not part of the  appeal to make sure i understand what happened in this record your client filed a motion for reconsideration in the district court with a complaint attached the district court denied it but then said that  initially i want to thank the court for allowing us to address the standing issue because i think it does not have standing under section one thousand nine hundred one in arlington heights the supreme court said that as a corporation the plaintiff in that case had no racial identity and could not be the target of racial discrimination the supreme court has never disowned her disavowed that statement moreover this court in the california supreme court h standing on a corporation that would not otherwise exist potentially telling why that why that is a logical interpretation of arlington heights thirteenth amendment which was to abolish slavery corporations were never subject to slavery and were never could not have been contemplated by the drafters of the thirteenth amendment to encompass corporations and artificial same attributes and rights as individuals they don't have the right to privacy the right against self incrimination they don't vote racial the discrimination is a purely personal experience that corporations as artificial entities simply can't experience right so then your argument is that jackson doesn't have standing on jackson doesn't have standing because any claims belong to the corporation but the fact that he does not have the fact that i think it does not have standing under section eighty one doesn't bar the door to the courthouse for the these kinds of c based was fourteen seventy seven contract his that the thrust of his original complaint was that sun did not give him any additional business that was the thrust of that complaint that claim under fourteen sixty one was unrelated to the claim under fourteen seventy seven it wasn't an abuse of discretion for the district court to deny lead to a man and we cited a number of cases in our brief that stand for the there was a breach of contract claim arbitrated i just don't know off the top of my head whether it was fourteen sixty one but i can check my dorothy seventy seven it almost certainly was fourteen seventy seven but i don't know what they include what claims under the i'm ruined act negligent and intentional supervision and intentional infliction of emotional distress i gather you can see suit based upon an adults only policy at a housing project that case had subsequently been interpreted by the northern district as having this one was this because this court held that you cannot appeal an order compelling arbitration until you complete the arbitration if the court is now to take the position that you completed the arbitration and the issue of whether or not we should have sent you there in the first place is moot then i wonder whenever a order compelling arbitration can be appealable believe that position is going is going to contradict of those are required to be arbitrated but if you read think it's complaint the assertion that that sixty one zero nine nine five the march ninety five agreement is not part of my complaint is just wrong  it was really the entire relationship but yes your honor although i did not i did not initiate that arbitration and the according to our son's request for judicial notice which i hesitate to cite only because i do not believe it's properly before this court fortune sixty one discrimination claims and whether which of those claims are required to be arbitrated is is the only issue that really requires a breaking up of the case contract so i think the entire relationship was on trial in the well yeah i guess what i'm driving at is that to analyze the futility of the proposed amendment not what you'd like to do now with the proposed right i would take a step back from the futility of the proposed amendment and focus i think the parties need to be put back