to enforce an arbitration agreement between the plaintiff and a third party so we recognize that it loses under sure and so it's forced to argue that sure was wrong and should be overturned but there's no compelling reason to overturn sure it's consistent with every other circuit to consider this can serve as question and more importantly it's correct but it sure was a straightforward application of the supreme court's opinion in or through andersen versus carla so illinois law applies here and like the wisconsin launcher equitable stoppel under illinois law now so who doesn't argue that illinois law allows it to enforce the arbitration agreement instead it suggests that this court allowed the district court to decide whether doesn't remember we don't think that's appropriate as we point out in our briefs so we refuses to explain exactly which team mobile terms and conditions apply of the we go this all of them or are similar and they're pretty clear disputes with third parties are subject to arbitration only if claims are also asserted against  on all fours with the case before the court today and neither are their interests and nor sure drafts the precise issue that is before the court they do not control the outcome and there are two reasons why first in this case the requirements of federal equitable us stoppel are satisfied the plaintiffs can see that they don't appeal the district court's holding that the plaintiff's claim satisfied federal equitable style that was not the case and arthur andersen and it was not the case insurer you know arthur andersen there was no substantive discussion whatsoever of federal equitable  were not satisfied in that case that is insurer so i would point the court to page seven fifty four of the sure decision and that's where the court addressed something called the hughes masonry rational h mation re is a seventh circuit case where the court recognized federal accountable the sample and then the shark case the court said to the extent that hughes masonry reasoning survives arthur knowledge the possibility that it did and it found that federal equitable is to hold as unsatisfied so that's one reason that story is not on the golf course with the case before the court today the other reason then is that end this case the mobile that's another reason sure is not on all fours and the shirking the plaintiff asserted title seven claims based on sexual harassment and retaliation by her employer who did choose to her employer the entity that she alleged engaged in the misconduct that employer tried to take advantage of an arbitration agreement that was included in the employment agencies contract but but that was different there right because the employee the employer and agency had nothing to do with the allegations of misconduct it's a livered and in fact the plaintiff to her employer and then it was not involved in the relationship so let me talk about how that's different because it's really really important the plaintiff is a team mobile customer t mobile not subway sent the plaintiff attacks t mobile sent the text only because the plaintiff is a team mobile customer the text was a part of a t mobile campaign called t mobile tuesdays or t mobile providing gifts to their customers to say thank you for being a teen mobile customer so in this case the text offered the pla subway sandwich the plaintiff has now city and suffolk not t mobile under the telephone consumer protection act the event that gives rise to a liability under the telephone consumer protection act is the se sells so let's talk about this not a hint that hughes masonry survive it's a hint that he was masonry didn't survive but the court is trying to be complete in a covering the bases just in case it strikes me that the purpose of that language though is to make clear that that decision was not made in the shark case ok so let's discuss directly whether he was made masonry survives arthur andersen great i think it probably does not because arthur andersen specifically said th supreme court had helt no no non parties cannot invoke section three of the f a a so what arthur andersen held is that when you held that there are circumstances in which third parties can enforce arbitration agreements those include some circumstances and principles that exist under state law and then the court held that the six circuits holding was an error because it categorically held that third parties can enforce arbitration agreements when there were doctrines that would allow for it the supreme court does have some language that says that the f a a doesn't disturb background principles of state law and we know that because for example state law governs issues of contract formation so long as it is not applied in a way that is preempted by the f a a but the supreme court acknowledged that federal law asa plays a big role and determining arbitrary billet and so what the supreme court said and this is on page one thousand know to footnote five of the decision the supreme court says whatever role the federal court the federal law applies it cannot possibly and this is quoting from the decision it cannot possibly require that just regard of a state law permits arbitration by or against non parties to the written arbitration agreement a state law that permits arbitration is of course enforceable and consistent with the federal arbitration act the holding of the arthur andersen case is limited to the appellate issue that we discussed already but the take away in addition if there's another one is that if there is a state court doctrine that allows for the inforce meant of an arbitration provision by third party then that doctrine must be enforced doing so i court's decision that's because there could be a role for state equitable doctrine in federal doctrine as discussed the facts and the sure case did not trigger the federal doctrine and so the state law doctrine was applied but if the federal doctrine is satisfied it should be applied as well and that is consistent with the purposes behind the federal arbitration act state law can leave a gap  subway cannot enforce this arbitration agreement that's what plaintiff argues we don't concede that that are all arbitration law federal equitable sample would allow for enforcement and so what they're asking the court is to interpret a federal law that doesn't at a state law is precluding enforcement of a federal law that would allow for arbitration what's what's your source for the federal law allowing non party enforcement of this country may i answer your honor i see my red light is on ok you still want to get in trouble here that the answer is that the federal equitable doctrine that the trial court recognized it provides for a third party and foresman and two and since as they are when the plaintiff alleges claims that presume or rely upon or reference the agreement containing the arbitration provision or when there is joint and concerted misconduct here between subway and t mobile the court found that those were satisfied and the plaintiffs have not appealed those findings the source of that doctrine is what keeps the source of that tax r n i would say hughes masonry is the source of that's what judge the course applied here but that's what circuit courts across the country have been saying is no longer good law in light of arthur andersen in it that's that's what this is where and in light of the valving understanding of the f being a source of substantive law right and threatened to say contract law governs that construction arbitration contracts see exactly runner and and whatever my friend says about what their position is they they are trying to don't concede that and i'm happy to discuss why we don't concede that why well and equitable establish the contract doctrine or what implied contract implied in law i think going back to to