and then he will go for four and then we'll reserve two minutes for a bottle that i would handle mapmaking just one comment since there we it's hard to tell when we're sitting virtually  interested in in the courtroom to make it just clear and if i'm wrong you'll say i'm wrong but just make it clear that's what what's at issue here is is not is not the merits in any way the truth of the charges made in this lawsuit the civil lawsuit the question is who will decide it and that's the only that's essentially the only question here is who will decide that it was at that fair that is correct rights on the st question plaintiffs are done in by the allegations of their own complaint which is why their briefing runs away from those allegations in the decision below and instead seeks to upright different law on the nd question opponents fit neatly within argued that federal law applies to the plaintiffs and now changed course and before the pod court for the st time asked to apply north carolina law but they waive that that choice of law by the form of a deciding in favor of federal law below in any event it doesn't really matter because the truth is that north carolina law actually has a looser test in place to looser tests for equitable stoppel so that if if we meet litigation and a decision on twelve b six so we fall neatly with the net because in this case the district court had only held one conference only made to proceed rulings and no discovery had taken place at the time and at the time our twelve b six motion remain address rush or sweat or be in their briefings so as a practical matter appears that they've essentially conceded that issue i want to get back to the st issue which is that while you're you're you're essentially out of time but you you want to take your  plaintiffs a c n has not been sued by the plaintiffs but a c n does have a dispute with the plaintiffs there is a controversy with the plaintiffs because if you look at the amended complaint that the plaintiffs have filed against the defendants it makes quite clear that there are allegations that a c ends market is it what is it that you think should be arbitrated between the plaintiffs and a if if they have not asserted a claim against him would seek a declaration from the arbitrator that it is not liable to plaintiffs for any monies paid to a c n that and is liable here that you are correct you are correct in that judge chen but neither have the plaintiffs said that they will never make a claim and more importantly you brought it up have you brought an action for declar you file a complaint declaratory no your honor what we st did was we sought pursuant to the arbitration agreements to commence arbitration of the issue with plaintiffs that is not successful because of the pseudonymity order we need the district court's assistance to compel the part of the parties to arbitration so after the attempt to file the arbitration we've done sought the assistance of the district court consistent with section four of the federal arbitration act to compel the dispute between a c n and the plaintiffs to arbitration so i think this is actually it's there are plenty of cases and we cited them in the in the briefing where a party seeks to compel a dispute to arbitration even though it has not at that point been sued but what is the what is the mechanism under the agreement to raise  and i think that so long as there is a dispute it's a very broad arbitration so long as there is a dispute relating to the i b o agreement and how that is perceived of course is a question and whether there is a to trying to trigger the arbitration process i am unaware of a mechanism in this agreement for trying to resolve that issue prior to the arbitration process now of course in this case the parties have interacted including community state bank versus strong doctor and the district court decision of doctors associates versus hollingsworth which is the district of connecticut case would be examples of those types of situations is there any case moved to compel arbitration in that case there are plenty of cases including the ones that i cited where a party brings a new proceeding under section four and in a c n n s view there's no there's no law that would prohibit the party from doing what a c n has done here and in fact it would be a step in the wrong direction and probably pragmatically a really bad decision to incentivize a party to start a brand new  to commence arbitration proceedings but you didn't have the names the identities is that that was the problem yes in was the addition court's order allowing the plaintiffs to proceed under pseudonyms would that's not appeal  right not the subject of this appeal that's correct i think that would be i'm not sure that that would be capable of being appealed at the interlocutory stage ok thank you thank you your hon and parking about them because there's nothing in them that provides that there's anything to do with that and i take it i take it your position is that if they were they do not have the right to bring that to see to arbitrate that the contract case that they they don't have forgetting the fraud allegations doesn't follow that donald trump the donald trump parties would be subject to arbitration i'm not suggesting that and i frankly don't think it but but the question is could they include a c n itself alone  which which would militate against the arbiter ability but but you're taking the opposite position which is you're saying they were you should pardon the expression in bed together and if they were perhaps they the or triple a scornful rules and that selection constitutes such a clear and unmistakable evidence to be sure as judge low a pointed out contact requires a measure of relational sufficiency before allowing a non signatory to enforce that delegation but the relation all sufficiency contact makes very clear there's nothing to do necessarily to do with the facts of contact the relational sufficiency is the intertwining this problem of the courts will stop a test of this kaplan points out th affiliates in some respects in content and contact does not matter here the point the context mates and the court has applied contract repeatedly is that the relational sufficiency is met by the intertwining as prong of the act will stop a test and that intertwined this problem is easily met here even the district court concluded so and that's because after paragraph after paragraph a plane of on allegations articulate a close relationship between the trying to tell i and a c n n they can't run away  your honor that still wouldn't make this claim different in context as it doesn't matter what the plaintiff might say now it's an objective test and the allegation allegations the complain related certainly sufficiently so to make equitable stoppel test and certainly sufficiently to meet the intertwined as prong of that test which is all that's required for contact to apply contact applies very easily in this case i want to dress one more issue before my time runs out and that is planets repeatedly lab accusations of gamesmanship and tactics at at the trump appellants for not asserting the arbuckle rights for eight months after the  motivation because they're pretty simple motivation is to avoid arbitration the fact that they're doing it for the purpose the principal purpose of avoiding arbitration has impact on the way we should there even if there were a way that they could do that in the abstract they certainly could not do it with the complaint that they filed here that puts the trump appellants and ac and together in allegation after allegation after allegation we recited all these in our briefing dozens being duped into entering these very agreements where the the alleged duping was all happening with a c n branded materials with a c n those facts right there whether they go through them in you know in the complaint or not clause between two parties so st your honor the judge still field mentioned north carolina law she just did that mention that the issue of north carolina law was never pressed nor passed upon and that's what's required for the court to be able to take it up when a party affirmatively chooses at the plaintiff that here federal law that is an affirmative decision not to choose north carolina law and this court's precedent is replete with instances where a party choosing a nd question there yes i think your question judge lo it was about north carolina law and you mentioned swift jamieson i believe yes so two things number one north carolina and these are north carolina cases they are they routinely apply the th circuit's test under american frank bankers and brands and the american bankers test all only requires that a signatories claims against the non signatory make reference to or presume the existence of the agreement which certainly happens here especially given the hundreds of references to i b m agreements in the complaint the complaints the other the brantley test application of ethical stop was the one the signatory to the that case what happened here is the plaintiffs actually allege that the appellant's work together with a c n to dupe the plaintiffs into joining these agreements and those are the exact agreements that underlie their claims that's not what happens in  and i think is out of step with the rest of the hill and or you're out of time with respect to the issue of the stay until the appeal is heard the appeal is now been heard by the stay will remain in place until we vacated