looking at the scope of our prior order right scope yes so we could determine what the scope of our prior order means yes but now the review of the c b c s order smacks of the second or wouldn't have permitted you to share that effect as far as retroactive effect yes you could have so if hypothetically we had said the last time around you know we see these issues we agree with the word that  you don't have standing because you're not in good standing and can't pursue it as an l l c and so we're from that part but we think there may be an issue of whether you can have standing as an associate an incorporated association so we incorporated association i'm not trying to trap you don't know what i'm doing and we're even if we agree with you we're limited in our powers when remey and effectively opening up cases to to everything we send them you know i still think there's an issue of retroactive effect once the prior order dismissal was vacated there was no final work ok let me ask you this and i know this is in the order but hypothetically we said we prefer the conclusion that standing as an unincorporated association when it goes back can't we limit the view to that unincorporated association issue and even if you do rescue yourself as an l l c got issue as a final judgment it's it's no longer before the board i think there's a way to craft the mandate that comes from this court back to the c b c and it just wasn't in your view in this case i think in this case to go to the order was vacated there was no final order and that was the primary point made by the v a that the cases that we cited chance enterprises and system integration were talks about retroactive effect once you've sure the defect the payment of taxes you're a good standing and delaware is very clear that it's retroactive back it's cures any prior defects so in this particular case because the mandate was to vacate the prior werder there was no pending final order so the case of chance and system integration i think are right on point to go to this what you're addressing seventy three a federal rules of civil procedure we believe that the exception applies because if the court holds there is no retroactive effect western states federal contracts can go forward because under delaware law to loud to maintain and to if you determine that there is not retroactive effect so going under that issue  then the exception applies because western states does not have capacity under delaware state law and that's exactly what seventeen b three a says we've cited a number of cases i'm going to run through just a couple of them because in the v a s brief they try to distinguish these cases but there is a multitude of cases that hold that one l l c is an unincorporated association and two that it's pursuing a subset of right under u s law that it's permitted to go forward and prosecute that action even if state law would not permit it so malibu media and ohio law wouldn't permit it to go forward the l l c because it wasn't registered  association but because all the claims were state law claims it was still dismissed but that does not negate at least the holding that the yellow sea was an unincorporated association there's you for the thomas that's the district of maryland two thousand and twelve maryland law said you had to register to do business in the state there they were suing that the anti piracy and copyright claim it was a federal claim and the court that case you are going to have problems particularly the point or one of the various issues and i think you're the prosecutor and soon i think it would be helpful release to me if you would comment on whether you think those prior orders are not in effect and the motion for reconsideration is irrelevant because now we're back to a fresh slate with a vacated order and the question now is does this l l c with no capacity to under delaware law again if you determine that there is no retroactive the fact then it should be permitted to pursue the subset of claim under federal law which is the contract disputes that its claims against the veterans administration vacated so all of those rulings and we've said in our motion to reconsider that now that there is counsel that's available we will respond to inquiries in all the in iraq tori's requests for   i want to go through one more point i do want to save time for vital the lunch place case there the school of medicine did have the power to sue and be sued but only by the board of regents so with the law which case tells is there is a more basic reason the exception and seventeen b three a doesn't apply and that is because the school of medicine did have  be by the board of regents the plaintiffs had just sued the wrong party so the board mistakenly i believe said the exception applies only when it being in the yellow sea has absolutely no right under the law the state where the court is located and that's not what the cases hold it's not that there's absolutely no right to sue it's that this particular l l c did not have capacity to sue under a particular state slot so we believe that you've already got this improperly of the one which case was read improperly and even the month of space said why the exception didn't apply because the plaintiff sue your honor may please the court the court should affirm the board's decision because the board applied answered the narrow question that the court asked it to answer in its remaining and and appropriately concluded based upon the text of federal rule seventeen law and she even if it could be considered an unincorporated association in accordance with the plain language of the rule it did not have no such it did not have which requires that it had no such capacity under that state's law that was not the case and was because when the case was initially before the board the v a requested dismissal citing the law of corporations and the board never considered whether the fact that it was a limited liability company would make a difference in terms of capacity and so the appeal that was that it never considered the law of clickable to limited liability companies as it came up on appeal it looked to us like that seventeen b three a day might make a difference at that time we knew and that was consistent for what we get we have asked with asked for in the order which our initial proposed order was a joint appendix to sixty which was that the court asked addressed the issue raised by western states whether federal civil procedure seventeen b purpose to asking for the truly i mean the problem is we need an aside we did sign your proposed order your proposed order seems to do exactly what you're saying you know we should do and to be limited but i  don't see you or order being that marriage well your honor and then it there seems to be no purpose for why the court would have said whether western state had standing under federal rule of civil procedure seventeen b three a seems like the court understood what we were asking it to do and did looking at least at the opinion did its asked and that's certainly how the board understood it as well requirements they applied the definition of an unincorporated association as a stablished under the under a federal case law looking at what an unincorporated association is and then also said even if they could be considered an unincorporated association it would have to be with no such capacity under that state's law and applying the plain language of the rule the court held that they did not meet those that western states did not meet those requirements at that time again this was not a company that didn't have a shot this this was a tendency to address a narrow question as the court has recognized they had over ten months when this matter was initially proceeding before the board to have cured this this was just given the context intended to give them the benefit of the arms a couple of points one the definition of l s d that was a lie let me let me ask you this i mean i think our order is not altogether clear but i think it's pretty i mean it's pretty easy to read it more broadly and not as limited as the government like but doesn't that i mean in your view that helps you in your case but doesn't provide kind of a disincentive to the government in the future to agree to a revanche to resolve issues at work result because if we say  look this order opens up everything even though the government wholly agreed to limit it for this to remain for this one a purpose the government's just going to stop agreeing to joint remand hold together and they're going to make and so it would have gotten a clearer order and so i understand your arguments here and maybe this is something to deal with in future cases or maybe we just need to write down her orders but it does seem to me that if we agree with you that this order in response to the government's motion which was intended to be very limited opens up the whole behave then the government is never going to file these motions over again i think a couple of points one the c b c s initial dismiss talked about it we had married states we all agreed what the purpose of the motion was and now because we had and if we hadn't written it if we had signed the order that they proposed i think he'd be out but because we wrote a different order than the one you have read to you have a chance to come back and i understand your point you're arguing for your clients in court and perhaps they should get it but the board also has its right to insist on following its rules and if you don't know after several you're in good standing i think they would be entitled to dismiss it so it troubles me that that we're going possibly to let you have another shot after multiple attempts and failures to reestablish good standing just because we wrote the order about and to address it in the future i think the orders can be more carefully drafted so we would take care of future issues and the concerns i think you're raising but the other issues again that would only address the retroactivity issue you would still have the seventeen b three eight issue even if it was a straight appeal lottery man so again there are alternative out that there was a dismissal of another case i didn't know about i was told about by the v a even though they knew we were pursuing another case so that was strange for me as far as the definition that the found that has held an l l c is not an unincorporated association because it had a charter and we've decided a multitude of cases that an l l c is an unincorporated a again if you hold that there's no retroactivity then western states have no capacity to sue under delaware law which makes the exception applicable because they're pursuing the subset of claim under the c v under the contract disputes