damage to the paragraph roman numeral two discusses the v t and m that it talks about the fact that a number of cases have had subtle but to go  that there was a procedure if you wanted to have additional time to conduct settlement gauche ocean that you could do that and then paragraph four of settled at the conclusion of the negotiation period under section roman numeral two point three those claims will be referred for mediation by a special master randy ellis and if mediation is unsuccessful in the case will be subject to discovery and further litigation pursuant to further orders of the court in paragraph three roman three it cases and in those cases it's those these are all cases other than the t a plaintive subject to the negotiation provisions of section roman numeral two above in this case had negotiations but after of the period of time elapsed the defendant filed a motion to case would be referred for mediation by the special master in this motion the defendant says that this case became a section three catus now the problem was this was filed unfortunately i was or fortunately you were the one of the two i was on my fiftieth wedding anniversary but kasia with my wife at the time and the first notice side had of the us because we were depending upon the fact to be referred for mediation was when an order came in dismissing this case it came in on eleventh of january we follow our motion under rule sixty on the very next doug because it caught us by surprise we never thought that a motion w any response to it because we didn't think our case would come under paragraph three because it was a bt case and we've asked that the order of dismissal be set aside would be remanded for further orders and be either to mediation by the special master or back to tennessee for trial we'll do either one  i don't and i've had all the warriors and all of his look at this order number seventy nine and i cannot sleeve how i section roman rule two codes suddenly becomes because that's what it was and i can't see anything in the case management order that s you don't follow a notice or you don't object it becomes a section three it says that i section two and even in section three it says that it does district court there are separate orders they need to be considered separately the first order is the order of the special the initial order and the case was dismissed for only one reason because there was no response to the motion to dismiss district court made no findings no determination of any kind about which provision of the c m o might or might not apply whether they had complied the sum total of the reasoning for the dismissal order was that there was that it was somehow difficult to identify that the motion had been filed because it was a single motion filed in multiple cases there is a long caption but i want to be very clear the motion was filed in the individual docket for each case if you look at the short appendix page forty six say shows the e c f notice that says specifically in this case there is a motion for an order to dismiss so that's where we are on the the order on the motion to dismiss it's not a complicated order and there's really no error alleged to decisions where there is a complaint is on the second order that's the order denying relief from the judgment under rule sixty now the plaintiff is a lot to say about why she thinks the case shouldn't have been dismissed in the first place why she thinks the district court misunderstood the order those are arguments that the district court two did address rejet in its will sixty order but even before getting there there's the problem that a rule sixty motion is not the place to start making arguments that you could have made but didn't make in response to that initial motion to dismiss this court's provident case i think it's right on point on that point will sixty isn't the vehicle to revive the issues he didn't raise before which you can do in rule sixty motion is try to explain why  will sixty one a plus and here the only one that arguably applies is excusable neglect there are references to a mistake by the district court wasn't mistaken about whether there was a response to the motion to n not to grant the rule sixty motion now under provident you know it's not it's not the place here in review of a rule sixty motion i think to get into all the substantive arguments that were raised but well at the right time anyway about why why dismissal here was actually completely proper under the c m o why the district court's reading of the case management order is correct we go through that in our brief and unless there are questions from the court will rest on our your motion to dismiss says that it's being made pursuant to paragraph roman numeral three this case did not occur under sixty under the other than mistake or issues will neglect its misrepresentation and any other reason that justifies relief and we think your honor in this case all we're asking for is judgement is justice and if they say it's a rule or it's a paragraph roman three choice and it's not the judge doesn't it's not supposed to look to see exactly what it is no question we didn't respond but it is not a roman three case it's a roman time this was dismissed because that's the affidavit says that from my associate and there is no reason that this case should not be returned to the co