form selection clause in this contract justifies to arbitration is focused on disputed in front of different arbitrators in different cities at the same time no one in trained into the arbitration agreement the parties signed here which specifies the form of where the arbitration would take place would reasonably expect to find themselves before different arbitrators in different cities at the same time on the very same dispute when i run that through as a filter of the us system and most of the our referral rules the we're all familiar with and our importation of the civil rule is often in arbitration which is sort of the compulsory counterclaim and all that so i read all that it makes perfect sense to me that you don't want to be in two places for something arising out of the same contract however here we have why should we look any further than clear that it was that was that they were that there was a precise one to one correspondence between the two matters your honor with the fact then find that they didn't have to file a counter claim that that that was filed in beijing wasn't necessarily a counter claim to the shanghai don't believe this report found that in fact he he recites in a footnote the contract numbers and we repeated them in our papers that shows that there were nine nine purchase orders which we raise in the disputing how much is owed sense but what the district court was saying is that the sea tac actually considered exactly your argument and that is whether the then diagram with if you will of the overlapping claims somehow prevented china nationals filing over here and whether needed to be merged and the track presumably interpreting their own rules in a way that doesn't exist one hundred percent makes sense to me ok but then we're not experts in chinese law they basically said it's ok to file in beijing when there's this already first trial arbitration in you're saying is that if the if the party that there was a dispute over where the arbitration should take place and it was a legitimate use of you know reasonable dispute and the court doesn't want to second guess the fact it can look and but there was really no dispute receive tax to decide after decided who file first and so we think that's where the analysis stops because the sports responsibility is to enforce or see if the interest on the past the shanghai panel by contrast did not a word interest so had the whole dispute then before the shanghai panel we can presume that they would have applied an equal rule or equal finding to to trying to read as literally as you want us to do in deciding on where the case should be arbitrated the first race should be fine now and that is if dispute you go to arbitration commission are you saying that there isn't there a dispute though over whether each person can file a separate arbitration and therefore being first it's a question of interpretation miller focusing on the wrong thing and that is if you go back to that language what you're focusing on is the claimant the word claimant and that says you can pick from some place to have  and and if this was a situation where the where there was a happened in present dispute and across counterclaim and it was complicated it may be different in our different situation but here what we're saying is it's a one on how the the arbitration proceed and as long as the question is may then the question for for us as a court of appeal is one of abuse of discretion on the part of the district court that the parties have agreed that the but in my discretion i'm going to deny enforcement here because i think that there's reasons of comedy that i should respect sea tac even if i disagree with the tack i think that maybe the parties of maybe a second been done an injustice here but in the interest of good relations i'm going to deny that in which case our of our review would only be for abuse of discretion all i can say is the district court did not engage in that analysis in the opinion and i ha which is the exact body that the courts determine that the parties stand should make this finding that they were different contractors that there were different products and very significantly that there was a different claim in fact when they issued the word that we would court today over ten million dollars that was for a dispute that was not contained in the shanghai arbitration it was for product that was no one claimed w was appropriate and we should leave things as yes is there a potential middle ground here where our interpretation of the contract would be that the claimant to the extent of the claim eleventh circuit they said that you had and have at least three now we're going to to have they specifically rejected it we have a case here with the parties contracted for if there was a dispute to have an interpreter under the rules of the body and that's exactly what happened here and the district court by the way didn't review it did two things warrant it said you contracted to have  way they have interpreted the word claim and think the words are still there they filed a claim and they got that heard in shanghai that was not transferred to another jurisdiction it was not merged with another one it then you can't have that other body do it but if they if that hadn't been the issue and it's appropriate to look to the parties that mean that the meaning of that phrase shall be determined by the commission because we had argued the district court opinion and and the court in the circuit just came down with an opinion affirming that saying you know pointing out that there was no prejudice why you would have an interruption in international trade and a real concern for all the things that the many courts to sell are so important in upholding  scandal if this case the been decided in shanghai do you have any evidence that it would have come out any differently than the way it came out in beijing it's on the interest point i don't have evidence your honor i have argument that because they decided shanghai decided the interest question in a way that mean you're you're i'm trying to get at the point is that prejudice point what how how how can you demonstrate that you've been prejudiced even if we think the sea tac is made of that decision here in the us the cat is misinterpreted its own rule eleventh circuit case in each of those cases nobody could show prejudice from the type that i believe the court is asking about with the panel have ruled differently in fact in western employer the ninth circuit case the arbitrator made a decision x