obvious is whether there's an implied right about him under one eye salmon for contribution however you're saying that the way you framed it with your right of recovery no implied contribution right under one of seven i was the way these cases are situated now before this court it's there's no record i think all the plaintiffs on this side have an express right and if you have an express right if you meet th contribution to this court's previous rulings it for this court to reach that i think would be basically just sort of an advisory opinion to be honest it was more and then they ask you in an underlying call it a procedural question in the light of  join several it should be an equitable allocation because it's our position is that she doesn't require a that's not something we have to rule i mean that's completely true but if you reach that if you reach that point goodrich does not believe why you might leave ten minutes of your time if you're really good and stop talking and when there's ten o'clock then you have ten minutes if you don't then you want the choices car or pass ok and as our letters indicated i've been asked to speak on behalf of all the defendants on several issues for my fifteen minutes let me be given by making a procedural point which i think is important is really a step forth  piece who do not otherwise qualified for section one hundred seventy three defense cannot assert section one hundred seven cost recovery claims for joint several liability against other p r b and that holding is  wasting your time with this your honor it's because you've given me the answer to your previous question if it's just wording so man to us then the substantive rights under either worded claim what you call  and our position is that as judge disagreement suggested a few moments ago in light of a lack of research and cooper vs all the all the question that remains for this court what does survive upon all creek and several liability against all defendants first cause of actual pleasurably it had a second claim for contribution which did not seek to impose joint several have billet because contribution by definition does not allow  that and that was in the third amended complaint they have they reinvented to a fourth amended complaint and they dropped because they were ordered to there's a judgment a dismissal of their contribution claim and then responsible parties for n p r pieces make only see several contribution under the combined effect of one of the seven and one thirty now so at the foundation of the district court judge phillips his decision in the confused the second claim which is for contribution is the very issue that we have to potentially figure out as a result of atlantic research ok and that was the  of implied right of contribution and i want to seven there are two other defendants your today and you go beat number cases in the code first case and those cases both district court judges deny the the all in lack research and the question is what if anything survives of an all right but that's not really i mean i appreciate your frustration but we don't have that exact issue on appeal we're not a definitive ninth circuit case which says a lot about all these issues which remains ambiguous in light of the footnote in what remains in the us and we put it this way is that there washing if that's a generic answer what is it about your situation that justifies a different answer i accept and i know the faster generic answer and i will tell the court from the perspective of those in court litigating these cases what happened in the reactor case and all the other cases as well is that the reale two cases up until july of this year when we got reassigned to a new district judge who was appointed to the bench has been staged for all purposes except discovery ever since this issue was certified and sent up under a could before the judgment and because the issue is of such importance to the burdens of proof contribution claim because on that claim your client was successful in having that dismissed correct that's right and there's an appeal challenging that ok so it was a missile so we just heard from from goodrich not from reality stem from goodrich thing we could just you know deep six right now that decision and we don't have to decide it from your perspective on the last the plaintiffs in your case abandon that claim because it was always that conclusion affected by like to research your honor the way it's affected is that it's followed rationale of reading one o seven and one thirteen together and having one of the seven create the right of contribution of one thirteen creating the mechanism by which contribution could be asserted and in a lan contribution claim with the limitations imposed by one thirteen and the court is saying they are wholly distinct they have an overlap because simply as the court said they find the plaintiffs in those cases would find in procedurally different circumstances and in that sense there they overlap and the procedural different circumstances are in one case just on the cost recovery someone has voluntarily incurred costs and the other case there are the limitations of one of  count was clearly for implied a contribution it was not for express contribution express contribution would have been a claim under one thirty one i believe we are out there with one of its earlier complaints did have such a claim but dropped it as it had to do in light of the essentially a several liability not joint and several liability clime now the court has asked the question quite understandably do we need to reach that issue given that all the district court decided was there's no implied right a contribution i think the answer to that is we know that they have some sort of right in district court it would certainly would be appropriate and i think certainly helpful to the district court in this case and all the district courts of the circuit for the court to explain not only what their right isn't but what it is that why would that be an advisory opinion on an issue not on appeal because the issue whether they have an implied right of contribution it seems to me that's a fairly implicate given that they have some sort of right under one of them necessarily implicates the presumably they could amend their complaint if they can if they did that various requirements absolutely in fact to make a class recovery action in fact we think what should happen here is the judge shrugs order should be reversed with instructions and then just shut can consider a motion for leave to a mental state a proper claim under one of the seven and at that point we will then see if they seek joint so reliability or several liability i see where this is going on that if you do think by the way you there is a first cause of action that on the face page is called contribution there the caption of the claim is contribution and then there's some language in the last paragraph of that claim that refers to both  also asking the ninth circuit to find on the facts before it that the plaintiffs in the case are the plaintiff culture as did not allege properly allege one thirteen contribution claim it's not entitled to that they did not need the statutory requirements for contributions right and one thirteen he decided not to address the second issue that there's no right to contribution because he found there was an implied right to contribution so he didn't have to decide that other issue seeks recovery of those costs against any against all defendants and each of them he also said that he is entitled to contribution because he has paid more than his fair share of the recovery cost and so si so that i guess the bottom line is that you're not abandoning a claim from like contribution you think we need to rule on that now actually i don't think you would necessarily need to rule on it particularly given the court's decision in western western properties further said in the situation where a p r p has a one of seven costa rica reaction and in addition to that raises the contribution action then it meets the one thirteen requirements of during  relied on one second president which the supreme court has not overturned to say that this complaint city with its own water system i've heard arguments that by pumping its water after record it was discovered somehow they've washed their ears and status there's a case that's dealt with out in the alternative more recently we've been hearing that because the police or fire the way we interpret or really she looked at that and said well since there's no action you can't bring an action if you're p r p your second cleans out the window so i just want to clarify that point and what i do think that brings us here since been  by the twenty eight jail after an argument more recently of the defendant i happen to think that all create sought an equitable result that i think is very sound there's no question that if you read from a creek what it was of trying to avoid was i think the court could address the issue of an all created and clarify whether there is or is not so called joint or several liability for p r piece because that is the issue that everyone is going to be arguing about if you decide that you have to sue under level we end up with motions to dismiss we're going to be dealing with it matter of weeks that is what i think needs to be responded to i can't sit here and tell this court whether it should or should not decide innocent  make an argument the other side i don't disagree with your honor i'm not here to submit that you must decide the question of whether it's implied contribution i regard it as largely moot in light of the fact that when a research is recognised that is if you do approach in your ruling the continued by taliban and al creek as was mentioned earlier in the argument i would simply submit that there is an equitable objective in that decision that is also reflected in the western property services case that  does what i believe is explicitly laid out in atlantic research which said that there is the one of seventy remedy which does have cost recovery is recognized into that statute but it recognizes the vital viability of one thirteen have equitable you know consideration by the court which can all addressed was the issue of orphan shares an inequity and i believe it sought to reach result  that basically prescribed that we want equity to occur we want the project rapid cleanups but we want equitable results i think that was the rationale i think some of the specific language you can all create has now been taken away by a lank research but sections in atlantic research that specifically lay out that the supreme court does recognise that one thirteen have does apply to join several ideality and i believe that the result brings everyone back to what the final creaks court was attempting to accomplish titled its cause of action contribution and then went forward to plead all the elements of a one hundred seven response cost claim to claims in a don't we well there's a there's a one thirteen it could figure out whether you have a legitimate cost recovery claim oh yes you could your honor or you could affirm because if you simply look at our complaint and i can go through the paragraphs we cite we we allege more global regulation then since you've waived your want us any claim to want us out like time to be if you your honor it's our position atlantic research takes care of everything that was on appeal and we did this court does not have to decide anything contribution under section one of seven again we would ask that the court reverse judge down roles opinion recognizing such based on the supreme court rulings and to devise that we think the court has to affirm the decision of judge phillips in that case the nine that right ok because i guess