not exactly a point but it's the time and time again is is well with the backup on the on the the lesser elements for claim preclusion are of course there isn't the d parties to the arbitration was the corporation subsidiary d the us and the district court d and my opponent d the tea time is true it wasn't part of the arbitration is it because we failed to join them in the overproof and no it's because d the and so it was why why is it wrong under under florida law what florida law says that's not sufficient to demonstrate  applying for the law and the cases requiring facts and circumstances to be consider for preventing a purposes i mean those cases that are cited by the that aren't applicable and the reason is d that my client intentional intentionally business with the china the my client is a telecommunications developer they go to different cities they bring a cellular network to the city and there were cities that went ahead of the st louis market and there was such that terrible experience with the usa that when the representatives came to to erik's dive into who owns all of these he said i i i can't i can't deal with you say i have to deal with c t e china and that resulted in that shore agreement that we call the misery agreement everybody a different label on it but there's a short agreement and a master services agreeing that my client and says that they did do business with the chinese company so that so that that the claims that we wish to bring here have to do with with that entity and their skipping kind of head but if it is no you're you're making  arrangement well that's what they say and if i were on the other side that's what i would say but the he usa is just a sales arm of of the manufacturer and the company who actually manufactures the headset who actually decide what kind of inventory d is to be sent to the usa who actually the size who actually agreed to provide alternative dispute resolution including pending claims that the were used in the stipulation and those are competing letters going back before the attorneys but were there arguing these points before the what we're not we're not part of this proceeding we are actually we're not going to participate in discover so we could now there are a lot of cases things discovery  a it was signed on the same day but in again our in our declaration our client explained their lawyer said well you know we have these other im essays and other markets we need this boilerplate language in there but it not fair to accomplish what you wanted which is exclusion from the proceeding and then turn around and say oh that's already been decided because it matters in this case they were brought together into a consolidated arbitration by the agreement of the parties including fair all of those parties agree that because of the relationship as mr dobbs alluded to there are these related companies and the equipment was going move from place to place there were overlapping purchase orders it was really one store in fact even counsel for the clear talk and these these companies  are at that time court moved to stay those various actions and courts across the country stayed the actions against court pending the determination being made in the arbitration why did the that all of the courts including the missouri court did that on a discretionary basis not required by the by the arbitration are put on a discretionary basis because they believed unsought based on the allegations of the cleanings that the the alleged failure to timely deliver equipment to the alleged killer to participate in the joint venture that the alleged harm that because of cities conduct that somehow daredevil was precluded from going forward with its business claims in the missouri marketplace instead what the evidence showed and what the arbitrator found and this is why these are the same claims what the arbitrator found was the evidence was that you made a decision to leave the missouri marketplace on your own you didn't lose the raise to market because equipment was delivered to you late the evidence showed that your competitor got there before you even purchased the equipment from c t so these are all claim conditions and then sort of the deal terms are in this this st agreement and the tour attached and they make one agreement that the words from the arbitration were ever this is counsel for their devil the arbitrator used in his award and that applied consistently throughout was the misery m s a because there was a florida agreement as well there was a florida m s a so to distinguish it one was called the missouri the m s a one was called the florida m s a we ended up dealing with five different jurisdictions the claims from tennessee claims from south carolina claims from florida place from california eventually claims from washington which was the claims that wound up  in the subject of the th circuit's opinion in a t c h versus washington so these were in fact and the allegations of these pleadings make it very clear that this is not a close question these are it can stack leave the same claim they claims are identical based on the pleadings that appear in the record those are the identities for purposes of the application of race judicata here whether the claims are the same turn time whether they are the same facts in evidence as a matter of florida law and it is clear based on the record that they are really i think there are four documents that i would respectfully direct the court to the complaint the are the statement of claim in arbitration the final award and the last thing i would really be the claimant's closing submission in the arbitration in which we see the arguments that were made against c t usa in arbitration for liability and they are the same arguments that are being asserted based on the same facts and evidence that we see against you corporation here and that is why respectfully we agree we believe your honor that the washington court and the th circuit reached the conclusion that it did and the judge simple reached the conclusion that he did in the last issue really is this question of of choice of law i don't think that's really  cases of taylor and semtex we're told that where a judgment is rendered in diversity that the state law of the rendering court applies and in this instance that was florida and that was based on diversity jurisdiction in the middle district of florida your orders i would just end by saying this this this fight has been going on since april of two thousand and eleven  a went through arbitration it had to fight to get that arbitration award confirmed it was subsequently affirmed at the th circuit another part of that a war against m which is present d in the own words about why he should not be a part of this action so it's easy to say we won and the issues were straightforward  when the party that we can practice with for those offenses duties which is unique to this missouri market ok so that's something that shouldn't get lost here is that the cause of the bad access to those things that who are employed by that china company in china there's a dispute resolution provision with those chinese officials that are running out of time but i had ask you to look carefully at