you could buy it you could argue by extension if sam if some are crossing state lines then the fact that that ober driver didn't the business model would be such that like the amazon case that because not every not every prime driver cryonics the state lines but amazon crosses straight lines or right now doesn't cross you the drivers in the factual predicate don't cross state lines right well that there evidence in the record to that effect that there is no evidence in the record your honor it states that that drivers for example in the jersey area new york new jersey area travel across of that statute for example and i think the most telling point in the case it's most specific on point on this issue is the rd circuit's decision in sing versus over in that case the court found that in fact section one  th circuit case that would be authority on this point you're citing to a rd circuit case what what's the th circuit law d on this question of crossing lines your honor of the not i'm not aware of a th circuit case that addresses the section one exempted so there's no there's so there's no controlling authority here that's correct your honor there is no control no four and i think versus united states district court there the th circuit said that clearly one of the things that you look at in making a decision whether there's clear legal error is one circuit control but it wasn't limited to that it looked at the court also made reference to other circuit court opinions that address the specific issue in this particular case the district court had before it the decision now subsequently for a circuit has also followed the search  arbitration agreement the rider agreement and the driver agreement but did not challenge the decision compelling arbitration under the rioter agreement in addition the titian or had other means of relief and he would suffer no b petition to request interlocutory review of the order he waited two and a half months instead to file a mandamus petition but of course mandamus is not appropriate unless the district court decision is clearly erroneous in here as petitioner counsel admit there is not a single nine circuit authority that he can point to conflicts with the nine excuse me with the district court decision in the absence of interest and in some fashion in here it is undisputed that whether we're talking about petitioner mr bright or the class of workers which is again what matter and there is absolutely no dispute that the work is inherently local so here in the district court how good for a number of reasons one of them was because mr gryce never crossed the line that he only locally transported passengers but also he was not part of the group classes work or is engaged in foreign or interstate commerce it doesn't fall within the exemption that is not the earlier iranian the looking at the evidence in the record here it's clear lift that work is inherently local and here in the rec group we know that the average distance of a trip in the one bill alabama area for example is about five miles the average duration is about eleven  no evidence whatsoever that this class of workers is quote actively engaged in the enterprise of moving anything across state lines i'm not going from judge barrett decision in wallace for the  and i think it is very helpful in understanding the narrow section one exemption and what is required and petitioners only argument here is that he is not in the lead engaged in interstate commerce he says he courts riders to one from the airport as one portion of their independent interstate travel but that fails as a matter of law it does not show engagement in interstate commerce because it is casual and incidental it depends only on the individual decisions of athens or it is not part of an integrated and i'm broken chain of interstate  said in yellow cab very clearly that where the relationship to interstate transit is only passed and incidental and not part of a continuous unbroken interstate trip constitute interst the continuous on broken interest a trip here is a matter of law where there is nothing more than an incidental and casual relationship to interstate in transit this is  droll matter and not a substantive right so it is not a right independent of whatever claim it is no prejudice from compelling arbitration plaintiffs petitioner had the opportunity to opt out of the arbitration agreement that included the classic labor and he chose not to be very important and was bound to arbitrate by both the rider and driver agreement and his argument under section one only only to the driver agreement so there is an end for compelling arbitration so for all of those reasons i think the concern of douglas does not apply here because once again there is an independent and adequate and undisputed grounds for compelling arbitration most important imo is that it did not decide st of all whether the section one exemption applied it simply considered whether the district court decision in that case with a doctor in a bright line rule that never fall under section line consider whether that was proper and whether that rule would be end of the inquiry and the court agreed based on earlier rd circuit precedent that had how that greyhound bus travelling across the country transporting passengers fell within to sin but here we don't even need to consider whether goods vs passengers makes a difference because the nature of the activity is inherently local and is an undisputed batch and even if you look at the yellow cab version from the supreme court it's very clear that this is not the type of activity that falls  except if you are working at the newark airport and regularly taking passengers into into new york city that's the interstate transportation correct i don't believe our wonderful because we don't focus on the individual driver are we to focus on as an entity or as an entity clearly is going to put in the business of transporting people within the flow to use for or take the tab that that they end up doing one or the other it's no different the fact that that driver's using cooper have access to pick people up at the airport is no different than a cab and  happens to be at the airport and supreme court in yellow cab the very clear that we are in vision with beneath on an individual athens or way to the cab from the railroad station even if they were coming from out of state class of workers who is i'm disputed that it leads from his position that the only theory is the casual and incidental connection to interstate commerce from picking people up at the airport but but the fact  that there is nothing to dispute that precludes a finding of clear error here from the district court and the difference is that there is no company here operating an interesting line there's no interesting boss line with legs that is integrated there is casual and incidental pickup or you happen the difference here because unless there is overarching interstate trip of which the driver is a part of an unbroken chain that was originated by the larger enterprise and did no such thing were did not coordinate a trip that came from out of it did not tell the driver to pick up someone if he had arranged to bring from boston or new york it did nothing of the sort in the driver seven and i believe it's absolutely consistent with the earth and the rd circuit and it's the right for all of those reasons i believe that this does not fall within section of columbia and then those individuals moved on it was there it was the choice of those bus riders use the transit company and those individuals were dropped off without the bus company actually wanting interstate lines and the