communications contractor install the components of a communications system the district court answered that question in the negative and in order to reach that conclusion the district court read into the unambiguous c seven license statute restrictions and limitations that appear nowhere on the face of that statute in doing that in going beyond the court's duty to give the plain meaning to the words that appear within the four an unambiguous statute the district court erred and it's that error that we has this court to reverse in aid of that error the court did at least three things independently that we can address first it redefined the term install in a way that is contrary both to how that term is used in the c seven license and how that term is used elsewhere in the contractor's licensing statute the court concluded that inside the c seven license the word install must mean to play something within a building rather fix structure and not to place it outside in the ground the way that m p next level did the problem with that definition of install is that the c seven license explicitly anticipates the installation of satellite dish antennas that was or the words in the statute which are obviously not installed inside buildings and the  license anticipates that a contractor will install a low voltage landscape a light and low voltage landscape lighting is certainly not installed inside the building and indeed if you consider the example of low voltage landscape lighting you can see the central problem with the court's reasoning you have a lamp in your flower bed it receives power from a cord that cord must either sit on the ground or be buried underground and if it's buried underground then tha someone good a hole a trench they placed that cable in that trench filled it back up that is exactly what m p next level did with the conduit in question here they dug a trench were bored a hole they placed that conduit essential for the conveying and protection of the fiber optic cable and then they either covered the trench up or the conduit filled the hole your glide did not connect the fiber optics did not connected and did not put it in with the tube because simply put in the conduit that's absolutely right and on i think you're on as point c v i and makes the argument that you cannot be installing a communication system unless you install all of the components of the communication system first of all there is no limitation found that way in the c seven license but beyond that we can go back to simply the language that you find in the c seven license telephone systems no individual component of a telephone system not the handset not the line not the poles not the switchboards in  central office are independently compatable of communication this system only works when all of the components are utilized in harmony to effectuate communiqu and so the fiber optic cable by itself is not independently capable of communication and needs to be hot tied into switchboards needs to be tied into light signaling devices and in addition to that it's not capable of being protected from damage without the conduit that m p next level install and so first of all that definition of install contrary to the very things that a c seven license says that you can install second the courts the district court made explicit reference to the c thirty four pipeline contractor statute in doing a compare and contrast between the two the c three four pipeline states uses that same order install installs pipelines for the conveyance of fluid water gas and petroleum no one believes that that sort of pipeline is installed exclusively within homes and so the meaning given to the word installed by the court was expressly was pavement only contrary both to the  council i hate to interrupt you because you're on a roll but but i've got a couple questions for you first of all let me let me ask you do you agree that before we can make any decision we have to establish that in fact jurisdiction i think the court always has to have jurisdiction i don't know that jurisdiction has been contested here well but but that's not necessary isn't i mean we can make that finding on our own if there's no jurisdiction we  i believe that that's correct your honor ok and it does a lot of construction in california right it certainly does a lot of construction in california and his license here and it actually has three addresses for its hom home office right all that's all correct your honor one in california one in minnesota and one in texas i believe those all to be correct your honor that's correct so where's the total  diversity and i can't remember and i apologize for not having c v a and place of incorporation at my fingertips though if i remember correctly i'll apologize to the court i didn't anticipate this i'm sorry i think that that's incorrect so is the what's the court's question in terms of whether or not there is a complete diversity of citizenship between the yes your honor i think that that was raised i think that the issue of jurisdiction was raised on a rule twelve motion below i have to confess we're now talking about for three or four years ago but i think that this issue was addressed i can't remember what the conclusion was but i think that this was tested at the court took to this incorrect conclusion was that it although the parties had agreed that the statute was unambiguous made reference to extraneous interpretive materials in the form of  c seven study guide now all edm it that and it's certainly the case that there are two california court of appeals cases pacific case on in the ronnie it's where the court use same set of materials however and it's on that basis that c v i advocated that it was appropriate to do that even though this was an ambiguous statute the problem with that line of reasoning was nowhere in the opinions for pacific case on iranian's does the court address the propriety of using the study guide materials when the statute is unambiguous it appears from the face of those opinions that that issue simply wasn't raised to those courts in other words no party did what m p next level did hear before the district court raised their hand and said wait we object to the use of these extremist materials when the statute is unambiguous and so while we agree that the court used to the guy in pacific a saw him running mates those opinions don't stand for the proposition that they are used in the face of a challenge in the face of a party saying this is an ambiguous statute where the parties agree that it's an unambiguous statute and that is the case here beyond that it's one thing to use extraneous materials as interpretive aides to allow the court to interpret the words that exist in the statute that is not how the study guide was used by the district court the study guide was used frankly in derogation of the statute which to add two words to the statute that aren't there to add limitations to the statute that aren't there the approach that the district court took ones if a certain methodology installation is not in the study guide then it's not in the statute but let me ask my question i guess we haven't really addressed i think which is the second part of this statute which is talking about work that is incidental and supplemental too so we focus now on what installation but your client was hired to install the system correct absolutely and so to me you could avoid the details of what install means if whatever work you're doing is incidental and supplemental to f lling that contract and the code says that work has to be essential to time which the work in which the contractor is classified so i would appreciate your comment on the connection or disconnection between install and then the supplemental and incidentally which the supplemental in it's and incidental and which is essentially a saving feature to say if a contractor if some portion of a contractor's work might be argued to be outside the four corners of the license which would mean outside the four corners of install because that word comes from the c seven license and so if there is a certain portion of the work that falls beyond the scope of the license a contractor is nevertheless allowed to do that work so long as that work is incidental and supplemental by which that we now know means essential to the accomplishment of work inside the scope where we would say we have work inside the scope and i don't think that there's room for reasonable dispute on this is the conduit that contains the fiber optic cable is clearly a portion of a communication system and it's a net and it's a necessary insurable essential part of that system the work of the m  next level did that the district court found to be beyond the scope of this license which was the boring and the trenching right that's essential to put that conduit in the ground it has to get there somehow and there's no other way to do it other than the ways that it was done and as and if you connect it to the installation of what your license is for it wouldn't then permit you to go off and do other boring drilling etc correct not unless it was related related directly to the communications equipment i would limit it even further than your honour's verbiage it's not related directly to it has to be essential to send installation of it and right it's that sort of carefully limited verbiage that saves us from instances like c v i n's question about what could you build a house in order to put a telephone system where the house obviously serves many purposes far beyond inclosing a telephone system i would point out under the facts and amicus before the court developed some of these just so that the court understands many of these things the borehole the trench they cease to exist once the conduit is put in it a trench is created the congo has placed the trenches backfield and pa were the this was the work that the district court took issue with but the trench unlike the house ceases to exist once the communication system is installed it's sole purpose was to how was that conduit the conduit that was within the definition that the california public you to the code gives to the phrase telephone line conduit that is definitional e part of a telephone line and that's the other way that you understand that a contract or a license to do all can also do some the california public utilities code heads that section two thirty three of this definition of telephone line that includes all conduits ducts poles and other  necessary to facilitate communication so the california legislature is telling you we view all of these pieces and parts as an interval whole of the telephone line a communication system to be installed by  communications contractor good morning your honors may it please the court my name is bill illy aapl us i represent c v i hand the owner of this project we're also the respondent here today i'm joined with heather herd who's one of my partners that our firm who helped me with the break briefing on this i'll be doing the argument today before you get started can you can you help me out with regards to the jurisdiction issue was that in fact decided at the trial court level like mr patrick since it's been about a year my recollection is fading on that issue but my recollection is that m p next level of california is actually a minnesota based company even though it's called california so i'm not i don't recall that it was a california resident for sure they did have some residents here but it was it was a it was a corporation as i recall that was that was created in minnesota and in minnesota law so that's what i remember  i'm sorry i don't remember my memory's not better than that c b i is a group of small telecommunications companies in the central valley that sought to bring broadband internet fiber to local schools hospitals and other public and private buildings throughout california central valley valley the whole project was about thirty just over thirteen hundred miles of broadband fiber network through eight hundred central valley  counties and there were thirty segments in total although this motion only relates to the first nine of those segments because the first nine of those segments were the underground portion of the work was no no in fact the contracts all records were substantially identical all required they caught the bidding contractor here m p next level to have a general contractor license and when m p next level filled out its bid you mean that license and the license well like you could be it's a general contractor's license could be an a license or i suppose a b license that's those are the two general contractors license when m p next level filled out the bid form it listed its contract california contractor's license it turned out to be the c seven but but we didn't know that and i for the products and they were selected to do the underground work did you get the the fiberoptics system installed we eventually did get the fiber optic system installed  so just by others i mean others m p next level did the conduit the underground work for someone not not the whole project but but a good portion of the project under their contracts and then we had others install the fiber optic cable going that actually allows the transmission so not withstanding the fact that they might not have had the license that you say they should have you got what you wanted you got which paid for right yes and no i yeah yeah the reason the reason this became a very bad lawsuit seeking substantial damages both by them and our counterclaim against the us against them us against them is because we felt we didn't get what we paid for we had substantial allegations claims that they not only delayed the job but incorrectly placed that conduit and and that a lot of the roadways under which they did the work in the republic were right of ways ended up being deficient and had to be redone so they were substantial claims that were never litigated because we didn't have to get to that point as your question on the contract were next level place their contract majority of m p s work for c v i am involved bearing conduit underground with work including underground trenching horizontal directional drilling excavation compaction back fill of trenches and pour over which is district court pointed out caltrans has had and did have during this whole project a requirement the contractors doing horizontal directional boring work for example the type of work that was done here by m p what the c seven license is and the difference to kill tree no i don't think we should give any deference to it i simply think it is it is relevant to show because an important issue here is that the technical nature and this is a sophisticated nature of the work that m p next level was contracted to do this underground work is not like going with  little trenching shovel in your backyard and digging a little trench to put some underground cable on we're horizontal directional drilling for example involves and this is in the record involves a very large piece of sophisticated hydraulically run a quick method you have to know what angles to put put the the boring in you know have to know how far it's going to go what kind of material you're going through and so it's very complicated and the district court pointed that out the district court it will affect this court points out that we have it as part of our contracts with m p next level we have very  specific technical specifications as to which m p next level had to comply for this underground trenching and boring and compaction they had to meet these requirements this is not going out your back yard ok but yes all of that begs statutes you know so here's what the statute says c seven contractor can install service maintain all types of and low voltage systems and then it goes on to say what they could be is what they installed a community part of the communication system well that's that's a yes or no answer and then you're going to explain i would say no and why not now i would say that the they can install a commuter low voltage communication system but they can't install anything that that's somehow related to a low voltage communication system that's what they say and let me give you let me give you know ok let's stop right there you're talking about low voltage but it says all types of communication system well it's to ninety one volts which is the defined as low voltage do you do you believe there's an ambiguity in the c seven statute it's a very good question there you know mr it's interesting that mr patrick and m p say there's no finding of ambiguity but let's talk about the word install and how the district court was wrong in that i think the c seven statute may be incomplete and so to the extent there's an ambiguity it's incomplete and i think that's why the district court looked to the study guides and let's see what let's figure that out it says is a fib optic system a low voltage this communication system i thought both parties agreed it was fiber optic system is a low voltage communication system so if so it falls into c seven there's no ambiguity about that right this is right ok yeah so if a fiber optic system that we're talking about here in undersea seven that would mean that a licensed contractor could install service and maintain it correct if it falls under c seven then i could do it what you just told me that this fib optic system is a low voltage communications system the fiber optic portion it would be a low voltage communication system what you can put the fiber optics in the ground i do you get that conduit you could do it a number of ways actually it's not just conduit and that conduit i would not do it how many so it is in there what are you going to do i mean in fact some of it wasn't done underground some of it's done above ground you could just put it above ground and certain projects well but that that doesn't say it has to be above or below ground it just says it's part of a system so that the problem i'm having is like you're arguing all the things that could happen but if if the fiber optic system is a part of the low voltage communication system then where why it's undersea seven right well it's undersea seven but they can't what we're saying is you have to look at the nature of this is the fact that it's it's low voltage itself doesn't allow them to do everything just like just like that allow them to do it allows them as the as a district court found it allows them to install you know cable t hookups in buildings and it was say that i mean it says it allows them to install service and maintain all types of communication and low voltage systems period right so as and as the district points out if you allow if you just read like that and don't look at the study guides if you don't look at the study guides for help and you adopt m p next levels interpretation which is that very broad they can do anything that relates to a low voltage communication system and what to installing i say no to install you have to install ok center so as a district court points out if you have if you have a stiff we're going to have a satellite dish on top of a house that would mean since you have to install the house to get in that situation you have to allow m p next level to license to install a roof it does not allow the roofing contractor to do the found the underground the foundation the house which involved or other structure which involves structural components just because the contractor constructing sutro tower because there's satellite antennas up there that's the house example turned into sutra tower doesn't change anything so what i'm having trouble with is every is going into the manuals and all this i'm i'm reading what the what the regulation says and then it goes on basically that permits you to install anything that's essential you know is an ancillary in effect and that takes you out of doing pipeline construction and all the other examples that were given so why for example wouldn't wouldn't this be incidental and supplemental  installing this fiber optic cable because here they didn't even install the fiber optic cable so they ate what they did you would have to argue that really everything they did was somehow incidental and supplemental to what they were licensed to do they didn't install the fiber optic cable and they did all this underground work so to find that what they did was incidental and supplemental why do you say they didn't install anything they did install the underground work sure they didn't install the fiber optic low voltage the quitman but all but this is you need isn't that an essential part of having the equipment but to work so if if i mean answer my question first not ok isn't having this conduit essential to being able to have the fiber optic underground part there were some ports where it was above ground so what i'm saying is if we if if the court is to interpret incidental and supplemental to mean that the contractor  anything that's an essential i mean it's going to swallow up the rule incidental and supple which member incidental and supplemental means what it says it's a piece of so it comes into play when there is a when there is when you have in scope work that's your license to do and then there's a little bit incidental in supplemental portion that you're not licensed to do that you can do it it's not just saying it's not just everything that's essential you can do anything that's essential even though it's outside that's my point that's what i'm trying to say thank you ok well you've used up a couple more minutes of your time that your clock is off it was already down to a minute so you've used all your time ok if i use all my time thank you thank you plus a little extra if they you know  let me come back to your honor's question and absolutely i think that my own counsel at this exactly right i believe and i believe that this what the complaint will say that m p next level of california is a minnesota corporation looking back at their jurisdictional statement  brief we indicate and it's a test though is it i'm sorry second test though is it the question is where is the nerve center of the corporation and i think what you'll see that the complaint alleged is that the headquarters is in minnesota and it's run out of minnesota not that it doesn't do business in incidental and supplemental statute says exactly what c b i and says it can't say that you can do anything that is essential to the accomplishment of work that's literally the statutory definition of incidental and supplemental and it may be that c v i and takes issue with that but that is not for the courts to rewrite it just like it is not for the court to rewrite the definition of the c seven license which was what the district court did which was the error that brings us here