your argument next in case seventeen nine eighty eight lamps plus verses mr pinkas thank you mr chief justice and may it please the court this court has repeatedly recognized the changes brought about by the shift from bilateral arbitration to class action arbitration are fundamental the question in this case is what standard a court should apply in determining whether an arbitration agreement authorizes class arbitration as a threshold matter we think it's clear that federal law imposes a minimum standard that must be satisfied in order to permit class arbitration the court made that clear installed nielson where it said a party may not be compelled under the f a a to submit to class arbitration unless there is a contractual basis for concluding that the party agreed to do so but the parties agree the agreement it but but in first options where the court adopted that standard the court said that it was the f a a that imposes the clear and unmistakable requirement before the before  i guess it would be the respondent here either way that a party who seeks class arbitration is denied last arbitration can they appeal directly to us if the case isn't the same pastor as this one arbitration today in the lower courts when a lower court dismisses the case and grants our picture in favor of an order granting arbitration those those cases are immediately appealable and courts like the ninth circuit and there are many many appeals pending right now in the interlocutory matters immediately appealable which if you do go off and save a lot of money and waiting till the end and the normal decision here is wait till the end and then there are exceptions sort of on a question where we read the statute it says what the district court should do if he is satisfied that this is arbiter of bull shout on application of one of the parties stay the trial of the action until the arbitration has been had this judge didn't do it and you didn't your predecessor didn't ask them to do it so this seems like a fluke but if we were to say these are appealable it's not only contrary to very basic principle coupled with the dismissal provides for an immediate appeal the court in randolph noted that there was a question about the question that your honor raises whether it's proper for a district court to issue a stay or to dismiss the case and said that didn't that wasn't  briefed it wasn't a question before the court was going to decide this case isn't in the same posture it may be that the court should take a case to decide the question whether district courts have the power to dismiss rather than stay but the issue is not presented here and hasn't been briefed here you both have these very broad this very broad contractual language right he had a broad delegation clause and you have contractual language that refers to all disputes claims or controversies in lieu of any  all suits or other civil legal proceedings and and what i hear you to be saying this essentially that you want to say except for classes is that right i don't think so you is we can't really believe that the parties agreed to include a certain set of things and i hear you to be saying the same thing we can't really believe that the parties agree agreed to be speaking of class  petition appendix that's captured that's headed claims covered by the arbitration provision and it says the company and i really consent to the resolution of all claims or controversies past present or future that i may have against the company or against its officers and i'll skip some language blah blah blah or that the company may have against me specifically the company and i usually consent to the resolution by arbitration of all claims that they hear after rise in connection with my employment or any of the parties rights or obligations arising under the supreme and so we think the agreement is actually quite clear and this isn't a case where we're asking it seems to me i mean there's there's language that in favor of each side's position  disputes claims or controversies all suits or other legal proceedings goes against you you would suggest that i mean in my cuts for you you know i'm i'm not quite sure that that's the case but you know because it's an agreement between these two parties about suits and the question is what kind of suits is it about and whether there's a kind of implicit exception for class claims and says i don't think it's about an implicit conception  in the court said we can't presume from an arbitrate the fact of an arbitration agreement that the parties have agreed to class arbitration because of the fundamental difference for the nielson there was no contract there was no agreement and you know everybody understood there was a stipulation to the effect that there was no agreement on this issue and and instead there was just a policy determination but here there is a contract and the question is what does the contract mean does it mean in all disputes claims or controversies or does it mean all disputes claims or controversies except class disputes claims of controversies because we really think that  party would not that the party who drafted the contract would not have agreed to that well i guess i'll there are a couple of questions a body than your question i think i think still nielson there was an agreement the parties agreed that the agreement didn't speak to the question of class arbitration we think this agreement to doesn't speak to the question of class arbitrary whenever i say that in general a general clause usually speaks to the things inside it if i say all furniture it usually means tables and chairs if i say or clothing it usually means pants and shirts and we don't insist that everybody lay out all the subcategories of things so this question is here you have an overall you know term disputes claims or controversies why wouldn't you include class disputes claims of controversies unless there's some kind of special contractual interpretive rule coming in that we wouldn't apply in other contexts so we think stalled nielsen said that there is a special contractual rule what's at and that the could be or there are two possibilities here we think the most sensible rule is to apply the clear and unmistakable standard because of the fundamental change that arises from class arbitration to from bilateral arbitration to class think the court has not been clear your honor again first options specifically says that although contractual interpretation is generally a question of state law in this context the court created based on the f a a a special of the f a a what the court has said and what the court said both in first options and installed wilson where the court made this exact same point about the general rule being federal comp being state law but there being an f a a overlay is that it comes from the requirement in section four that the parties be directed to proceed to arbitration in importance with the terms of the agreement and i think in both contexts what the court has said is that this is to find to be sure that it is the terms of the agreement in th special case in the in the case addressed by first options the gateway issues the concern is this is a delegation of very broad powers to the arbitrator and therefore there should be certainty that the parties are delegating that party power to the arbitrator here again delegation of extraordinarily broad powers of the arbitrators the court has discussed in a number of opinions about class arbitration therefore we think the same test should apply so this year i'm sorry is your position that the decision to load was right on state  basically you're not quarreling that this contract was an p q is that it was susceptible to that meaning petitioner that the respondent gave it and that under california did wrongly apply california law and applied it in a way to reach a result and we point to the two california court of appeals decision court look at all that if i got you right you said your principal position is that there's a federal rule that would come in even if the california courts got california law right and that in many cases analogous to this you would have read this contract to include both class claims and individual claims but it's really a federal rule that you're asking for we are advocating a federal rule i would say that court looks at the cases that cited in our petition there's no court applying looking at the issue to an oval rather than either an arbitrator's decision that has construed aargh language like this to encompass class arbitration you know i guess i gave you a bunch of reasons why in looking at a normal contract under normal contractual principles you might think that all this extremely general language included everything inside it but you're saying no even if you think that there's a federal law that comes into play just just your honor as in the case of the question of whether a contract delegates arbiter ability to the arbitrator if the sta relevant state law would construe the clause to delegate to construe the contract to make that delegation what first option says is no that's not enough i don't have that clear and honest i'm just trying to get a handle on what you're saying so so you're saying it's a federal rule so i guess my question is where does the federal rule come from i think it comes from exactly the same place as the first options rule and from the discussion of this very issue in still wilson it's instructive to look at still nielsen i understand your that nielsen didn't decide the content of the standard but nielsen talked about the fact that interpretation of an arbitration agreement is generally a matter of state law and went on to talk about the fact that the critical question the f a a is that contract interpreted according to their terms pointing to the language in section four and it concluded it's said from these principles it follows that a party may not be compelled under the f a a to submit to class arbitration unless there is a contractual basis for concluding the party agreed to do so it remains so said but still it nelson was a case where there clearly with the court specifically said there was no intent to the parties there was no agreement as to the particular issue in front of it so in my hypothetical where the the court is saying well under state law we would interpret this to understand that there was an intent to the parties and that there was an agreement as to this question you're saying notwithstanding that still neilson said that we didn't decide that question that a federal rule comes into play and i guess i'm going to ask the same question because i don't think it comes from else and where there  agreement at all so where does the federal rule come from i think it comes from the same place that the moses cone presumption comes from and the first options presumption the rule of clearing a mistake ability comes from and the how some rule of clear and unmistakable requirement comes from which is section four what the court has said is with respect to some critical questions it want there is a federal rule of decision that comes from section four to make certain that the authority delegated to the arbitrator has act in fact been delegated police and you're saying if even if it's a questionable interpretation of that statutory language again someone of the last case with justice kagan is question the precedent the ship the fact that the court concluded there that there was a federal rule of interpretation that it didn't have to flesh it said footnote ten in fact we don't have to decide what that standard is because it was the only federal rule was that it needed to be based on an agreement of the parties because it said arbitration is a matter of consent and that's all over the arbitration act where the question of how to understand whether parties have consented that's usually a question of state law and you are saying a federal rule should come in and say notwithstanding state law saying that these two parties have agreed to something the federal rule under the arbitration that says no well and usually what the federal arbitration act does is it it surely does come into play when you're afraid that the state law is discriminating against arbitration agreements but where there is no such concern and i don't think that there is such a concern if the state if the state courts just say we're going to treat general language as including everything and side it then i don't see where the federal law comes into play to create a different contract interpretive rule well first option somehow some we're not such that would be to require that the class action we were provision in and he gave me the highlighted where he we don't even have a waiver provision so if the conception say last time we waive actions well this this might be a different case if the question were whether class actions are excluded from the greenman friends haven't argued that this or that the question here is whether this extraordinary procedure called class arbitration is going to be authorized and so i think there the question where we are talking about whether to delegate that power to the arbitrator does raise exactly the same concerns that motivated the court in these in these other contexts when i go back or second to the procedural problems you're plaintive and you bring a case and you say judge i want you to send this to arbitration right and the other side says no judge we want you to decide the issue that's a normal case and many many cases like you have difficult issues like the one before us and so section three of the arbitration agreement seems to say what the judge is supposed to do judge think stay the trial send it to arbitration if you think that's the result by the way judge if you think there's a tough issue in this case you can always certified and if one of the parties thinks there's a tough issue and you won't certify it they can always ask for mandamus that's like a million cases and this is one of them so if the judge makes a i mean you say well that's never been decided i'd say or i but that's a threshold issue maybe then we should pick the case well the court did decide the issue of randall in randolph was in the same posture here where there was that order  because it wasn't fully argued and well i don't i just don't see why we should treat this area of the law when here unlike the other areas there is section three why should i be treated differently and suddenly reach a tough issue when the statute seems to say don't well a couple of a couple answers i think it's important for the court to reach the issue here because the reality is if a case is sent to class arbitration it almost certainly is going to settle the court has talked a lot about the course of the inexorable pressure to settle in courts in class litigation class litigation in arbitration is one hundred times worse because they have very limited standard of review at the other end so the reality is if all cases were stayed and the case could never be appealed at this stage the question of what the standard is for deciding whether a contract authorizing class arbitration is would never be decided there is a conflict right now in the courts of appeals about whether dismissal is a permissible is a permissible step after a court has ordered arbitration or whether a stay is only permissible the court could certainly grant one of those petitions and decided the of the iron fact that the question whether the district court had the power to dismiss it was not before it and did not preclude it from hearing the case i think if the if this court were to hold that a stay was the only permissible option then obviously there wouldn't be an appeal but as they say there are many many cases they in which dismissals are ordered and which their appeals and the irony of this case frankly is the shoes are on the other but typically what happens is arbitration is ordered especially in the ninth circuit plaintiffs seek dismissal so they can immediately appeal the arbitration order and in the ninth circuit that's permissible and to tripoli defendants resist that so that's just a private mission and that it's going in how many of those cases  and in those nights your case is even if there's a request for a stay yes the ninth circuit takes the position that the district court has the option of whether or not to dismiss or stay so it then gives the district court the power to decide what's yes if you just had if you just had the statute and not sold nielsen and the other precedents you've cited in response to justice kagan's question how would you answer where does it come from i would still say that it comes from the language of the statute which i was doing cordons so make an order directing the parties to proceed to arbitration in accordance with the terms of the agreement and that some issues can for some some decisions confer such power on the arbitrator that federal law before federal law confers that power on the arbitrator federal law wants to be very sure that the parties have a tendon that resists mr pinkus could one read that same language suggesting not that the district court gets the opportunity to decide the nature of the arbitration but merely whether there's an agreement to arbitrate and that procedures like class war individualized proceedings or not within the scope of what section fo contemplates and at the error here is really that the district court shouldn't have gotten in the business of specifying the procedures be followed in arbitration well many arbitration agreements expressly allocate the authority to decide this question to the to the arbitrator because it is such a to the court rather because it's such an important but i understand this this case that would then come within the context of that of the statutory language is there an agreement to arbitra but that's not the language we have here but the parties submitted the question to the district court i think they essentially agreed that that it was appropriate for the district court to decide it one quick one mr pinkas you say in your brief that you do not necessarily argue for a clear statement roy you agree that you didn't make that argument below so what language short of a clear statement would lead you to conclude that this agreement was intended to want to rise class arbitration that it was no i mean what would be enough for you to switch your position essential like if this if this if you say a clear statement rule isn't required but you know what kind of language would say  i can see that the parties agreed to class arbitration there if there wasn't the provision that i read the agreements or simply said we agree that we can bring any lawsuits that we could bring against one another in court but that's very different language than there is here which talks about claims which talks about my claims and the only place that lawsuits is talked about is the in lieu section which is basically saying what you can't like to reserve the balance point thank you counsel application of neutral state contract principles to determine whether an arbitration agreement permits arbitration here well the question really is whether they are neutral principles and as i understand it the id argument is that applying these principles has a peculiar construe the contract and give intent to the parties and that is consistent with the f a a and a class arbitration as to whether or not that applies in a class arbitration agreement is not the same as an issue of arbitrary bil and doesn't rise to a special standard so what's left is just the application of contract principles to determine the party's intent as to what they applied with class arbitration hour days and many victories in contract take a call and so we have to give intent to the parties and at the same token if the parties did agree to proceed with class arbitration that she wanted the f a would be required to enforce the parties inten will be made well it depends on the language of this of the actual agreement and to the extent that the terms speak to class arbitration even if it's not explicit we have to determine the difference between whether it's silent and whether there is something there that supports a class arbitration whether or not it's explicit with the words class arbitration and in order to do that the norm under the f a a is that we  employ neutral contract interpretation principles like we would to all contracts that determine what the party is and ten or was with respect to class arbitration i mean it's against justice jackson's phrase i mean the f a a is not a suicide pact so if the f a a says enforce the contracts according to its terms but one of the terms as our prior precedent say is fundamentally inconsistent with arbitration then presumably the f a would preclude that term yes that would be an exception to the normal rule because that is elevated and the f a has determined that first and foremost that the policy overrides that we want to enforce arbitration agreements to the extent there are big us unlike the norm overall when interpretating ancillary issues with respect to that agreement when it comes to arbitration issues they do but it's not federal common rule that the play you know i'm just saying this is an arbitration association and the arbitration association has rules governing class arbitration so they must not see class arbitration as a poison they must think the class arbitration has a place at least in some cases correct to the extent that the parties did agree to do so and that agreement has the well i thought forced i thought those same rules specify that the rules themselves do not provide a basis for assuming there's class arbitration there's no assumption one way or the other what happens is that the courts have to construe based on the contract law principles to determine what the objective intent was of the parties at the time of enforcing the agreement and the plain terms are given the terms of the contract are given their plain and ordinary meaning and that that is the right if that's enough what do we do with the due process problem that justice alito pointed out in oxford health where you would have potentially class members purportedly bound by an arbitration this is in a court of law where we can  e absent class members rights consistent with the fourteenth amendment because the procedural protections associated with court proceedings what do we do about those absent class members in opt out classes court just found that the agreement provides for a class arbitration and goes to the arbitrator to determine whether or not that will ultimately be certified so the antecedent question of the court finding that the agreement here provides language that encompasses and anticipates and allows the parties to go forward with arbitration which will now go to the arbitrator to decide and they are subject to the same exact rules as a court of law when determining whether or certify the class they could employ the same due process protections such as procedures and at that point an absent class member will have the opportunity to opt out or they can limit in proceeding and at the end of the day when the arbitrator does make that decision there is a review process make up a legal claim how can they be deprived of their legal claim pursuant to an arbitration award if they never agreed to arbitration the arbitration was a matter of contract well in the first instance it's a matter of contract right as to whether or not the contract actually will permit the proceedings now the arbitrator may get that issue and decide it doesn't meet the threshold there is no way to sue certify the class so then we're back to individual arbitration so that's why this is a very premature question and due process concerns are not related to the antecedent question as to whether or not construing this particular arbitration agreement by the corps also you saying is now ultimately that it is she's just saying that it is the contract does support that the issue of whether or not the class can be certified goes to the arbitrator for ultimate decision so the due process concerns are not involved in the first instance and just a strict contract interpretation there are no decisions made on absent class members or who they will be so i'm sorry let's look at that that's just that's resolved later on down the road and it's the same issues that apply in a court of law that would apply in an arbitration the same exact protections and then they have the built in review process where there's a party shall fire no decision made by the arbitrator and that can be appealable by either side depending on the outcome when under extreme extraordinarily deferential standard of review for the arbitrator yes for their decision on class arbitration but like in this case the order in the first instance by the district court finding that the actual agreement did contemplate the class proceedings to be given to an arbitration or an arbitrator to decide whether or not class  because it was the beginning we were also questioning the issue of arbiter ability as to whether or not the data breach claims that we were alleging even spell out in this book and the scope of the arbitration agreement and the issue of me i'm not quite sure where you did what you do but it seems to me that that would have been clearly for the arbitrator's under the cerberus of this contract this is related to it that is the the yes the rumor that is you definitely did have a delegation clause that gave the ability for the arbitrator to decide these decisions when it was filed in district corps on behalf of frank for all of the issues of it wasn't just the class true and class action is a procedural process correct and in my mind that when essentially it's always an arbitrator's question what when you hold the hearings how you hold them we're all of those things are typically arbitrator decisions so it seems to me that under normal circumstances you wouldn't have a court decide that so i think just justice course which earlier tonight but here instead you chose the court to from engaging in the normal kind of inquiry as to whether class would be superior or preferable in some way that i soon the f a a rules have some some analog to they do so the rules that whether a court decided the threshold issue as to whether the contract provided a basis to permit the class to permit the parties to go class arbitration basis that doesn't stop the in so it appears from the rules that the arbitrator has to give deference to that initial threshold ruling but that doesn't mean that they have to ultimately certify the class and why we bother with it then i mean if at the end of the day shoot other kinds of procedures that might be allowed or disallowed in arbitration proceedings seemed like a lot of collateral expense and and difficulty that seems kind of a little inconsistent with the idea of getting to arbitration quickly and th have been here there should have been no appeal there was absolutely no right to appeal it should have went right to the arbitrator wait a minute why did you not ask for a stay we did not ask first day at the time because we were ready to go and know so we were fine proceeding on a class basis and were ready to go to arbitration plus fought that and issued a stay because they didn't agree with the way they didn't get what they wanted in asking for the order to compel arbitration to play god they got their order compelling it but they didn't like that it wasn't limited to an individual piece suppose ordered in conjunction with an order dismissing my claims on prejudice or without prejudice then that would be a final ruling against me that would be a grievance to under the f a a and the basis for that would be the in correct ruling the district court ordering me to compel arbitration so i would have a basis for that unlike lamps plus they could not turn in now an appealable issue all the way into an appealable issue because they're the ones who asked the corps to order this is the dismissal of my client's claims  initially they did it with prejudice follow and they got it without prejudice and if that were stay instead like arguably the f a a requires under section three that if you are ordering the claims to proceed to  but if it were reversed and i had was challenging the order compelling arbitration in conjunction with a final order dismissing my claims i would be aggrieved because now out of those claims junctions there's a contract between two businesses and business a drafts the contract business b accepts the contract there's nothing in the contract about arbitration but the state court but it turns out that a which the party the draft of the contract doesn't want to arbitration be the party that did not draft the contract does that it would err on the side of not finding for arbitration because it would be construed against the drafter who was  so what's the difference between that situation and the situation here well there was a decision to suing a in other words if state law if state law governs that's the decision on the state law in this hypothetical there must be arbitration even in the absence of any arbitration clause whatsoever that's state law so that would be with that be consistent with the allowed under arbitration then it wouldn't be in conflict with the f a a here is a problem vika that i'm having all that you have in the california law only happy here is the contract says in lieu of any and all then on the basis of that california unlike most places which is a system more than that to create ambiguity say that's enough to create ambiguity and therefore we have class arbitration now what is my problem i dissent in still feels i think i did but i lost if i did i lost and what the majority said was you cannot infer class authorisation so still i think i won't get too far and so we have the case right there with the language we have the california mind which you know right on track and we have a special rule which is their right i guess that we find in big u t there though the textbooks say don't ok so that's the main point on the merits as i see it and i'm asking the question because i want to know your response well first of all install nels and they deny interpret the agreements language at all they said that there was an agreement a side agreement between the parties expressly if pressley stated that we have no agreement on class arbitration and so we're not even going to look at the contract they gave it to the arbitrators and the arbitrators found that class arbitration applied simply on policy basis this is not the contract here the ok there or at least two or three california lower courts and this one court of appeals who have seen contracts almost identical to this yes and so contrary to the lower court to the lower court here to the ninth circuit that that one which is not a no to have a foothold in the contract under california law because  words the waiver of all lawsuits or other civil legal proceedings you have to submit everything to arbitration don't say anything about the nature of the procedural nature of that arbitration that's been their reasoning and they look at all of the eyes in my claims of this contract and say that shows just a bilateral intent  those courts unlike the court here is basically saying that the court below misapplied state law now are we supposed to give deference to the state court on its interpretation of state l or are we supposed to check to make sure that they are in fact following state well that's not even an issue here that is an issue even if this contract doesn't speak at all there's no foothold our contract only does the contract that that lamps plus cited it is from two appellate court in the state court and their language was very limited and not even nearly as crowded as our provisions and we have the best statement in the contract that supports you in our contract the very best one is arbitration shall be in lieu of any and all lawsuits or civil legal proceedings relating to my employment that arbitration will be in lieu of a set of actions that includes class actions and allows for class actions and the language and contrast it with the language of the state appellate courts they were limited specifically to my problem with that is arbitration isn't proceedings by definition you did have some discovery rules here but by nature the discovery rules  arbitration a procedural issue are different than a lawsuit so or notice requirements and interact the turris everything's different procedurally why are you thinking that class action proceedings or for a special perceiving that your title should bring somewhere else i'm not thinking that it special i'm thinking that to the extent that the parties have it in their contract we have to give their intent first and foremost the equal that we have to enforce they are under the f a a that's their overarching principle is that we look at the intent and force the contracts according to their intent so those two lower state contract interpretations didn't buy an ambiguity at all the language there was much more liberating and to the individual claims that were able to be brought by that individual only with respect to his employment against his employer and vice versa our phrases are far more sweeping where mr burrell assented to waiver of any right i may have to file in liberal a lawsuit were civil legal proceeding relating to my employment with the company relating to my employment data breach but for his employment in the data breach one of kurt sent he has claims out of the data breach that encompasses claims of areas because the word proceeding is extremely broad and includes legal actions or procedures a civil arbitration or class action is absolutely a proceeding and not only that  controversies disputes a class action is a controversy or a dispute and anything that was supposed to be brought in a court of law that could have been brought now has to be brought in arbitration and it doesn't say that those claims cannot be or that they are waves from from being brought in arbitration and the fact that it's you know the lambs plus argues that there's bilateral language that my employment that doesn't it doesn't modify the term my individual employment or my individual claims my employment encompasses all kinds of different claims that arise out of this employment including the data breach and because whatever mr perot could bring in a court of law individually he isn't title to also bring those claims on a class why basis in arbitration because in lieu of means a set of actions that could have been brought in a court of law now have to be brought into arbitration and that does not limited his right to bringing the proceedings on an aggregate basis that doesn't change the nature of the claims or the party's rights the only thing it changes is the way that the proceedings  processed in arbitration and it doesn't stop there the language goes even broader to contest all remedies that could have been issued in a court of law sanction is not a reality no class actions not a remedy but remedies can be awa and are awarded through class actions to other people not to other people but there's nothing that prohibits him from bringing in arbitration only his individual claims when instead arising out of his employment it basis and it doesn't say that in the is to say class arbitration expressly so there we have a we have a situation versus silent and expressly and what we're trying to look for what supplies  looking at the contract language and although on review they had to give him deference they stated that they might not have agreed with his interpretation but if we were going to go with a clear and  eight that are decisions of that go to the merits five approve settlements one is a dismissal one is in favor of the defendant and there's one for the plaintiffs so they really for for all the years the class arbitrations have been in process they really haven't produced a lot of the end of the line just discourse which raised the due process issue and i think that's a no other reason why the clear and unmistakable standard makes sense there's a serious risk that if the standard applied below are allowed to  prevail then the class arbitration would proceed let's say the defendant one then every class member would then argue in the future when the defendant sought to enforce that judgment i didn't agree to class arbitration so i'm not bound by arbitration to which they did and consent could bind them especially if they could prevail on an argument that the arbitration agreement did not provide for class arbitration that would be their argument and ironically the defendant would then be arguing for class arbitration the class a punitive class member would say no when the putative class member would say you should construe the ambiguous agreement against me by saying there's no r there's no decision that the arbitration agreement authorizes class arbitration obviously the arbitrator then would have to go through the process to see whether the rules for certifying a class were met but he couldn't or she couldn't contradict that the court's determination that class arbitration  was authorized and then just my friend relies places a lot of reliance on the in lieu of sentence in the agreement but but what that says is what arbitration is instead it doesn't say what can be arbitrated and what can be arbitrated is covered by the claims covered by the arbitration provision and that's the provision that has the eyes and the mind unless the court has any further questions thank you counsel the case is submitted