left up st the parties in the underlying lawsuit never intended to settle that issue at all absent completion of a written agreement that was never completed in this case the underlying case and nd even if the parties somehow entered into a binding settlement agreement  that agreement under california law because back only entered into that unintended and unfair agreement based on the crucial facts on the state is there any evidence in the record or shown that mister communicated desire chart so you know i get an order of two responses one i don't think about certainly not the only way to read what happened here i mean and all of this correspondence there was a suggestion the back would have the opportunity to review the settlement agreement  will draft a written agreement and i'll send it to you for your review and that's of course consistent with the stipulation and it's consistent with davis lawyers and systems after buy it refused to sign the settlement agreement because he didn't agree to its terms is insistent but completing that written agreement was required in order to finalize the settlement and i want to emphasise that our argument in order to accept our argument it doesn't need to be that our position of the only possible inference from these the california courts made clear  speculation for dismissal but that that the parties were require to have a written agreement and so so that that man if there wasn't a written agreement there was no agreement but the problem that i different because the oral agreement that they had in court your client was given the opportunity to say these are not the specific terms of new agreement and did not say the court is no he wasn't obligated to say anything that and the district court did not say that so much teleconference that those are the only the only terms under a pretty clear california law if you look at the supreme court's decision the california supreme court decision masterson are if by believe davis had made this representation that it would have been part of the agreement even if it wasn't stated in the settlement teleconference and i think you have to believe that based on the outward  memorialize the agreement as stated in during the conference and so to me when you say memorializing that means you know we're just putting down what we said before we're not negotiating new terms i mean i might have used that word but you also said that it was required term of the settlement that was required to complete the settlement and i think that the i support just talking about material terms the idea that there would be you know these deep unresolvable disagreements that might arise you know i think a lot of the idea that we're only talking about record but i don't believe i believe the only i don't believe are not true we are arguing now that there were any other anything else wrong with that other than the fact that i had to it was just the evidence to show that they didn't think that you could renegotiate new terms in the in the sign an agreement with the representation so so somewhere there was a grain that that went by the defendant didn't include it and my understanding from what i read in the record parties understood that the written agreement negotiated that was key i realize that only i'm pretty seconds left but i also want to emphasize that you know even if the party entered into a binding agreement that the back of them settled to assume that agreement under california law and really the district court only reason for without any recourse and without any financial compensation and that is a fundamentally different substantive agreement from the one that i thought it was entering into and in a way it's not that different from the supreme court's decision in donovan where you basically had an asset a party gave away for far less than a believed it was judicially supervised settlement agreement that cannot be changed once you leave this court room and you know if that was enough as the district court effectively held hearings on that should've been the end of the matter but the court of appeal of matches looks to the overall outcome out of the malpractise case that is not the reason to and the settlement in our case and the countless number of settlements that trials course across nation work tirelessly to put together every day every week year in and year out if in course settlement on the record does not count and we are in trouble to respond briefly to appellate argument as two parties intend to prepare written agreements conflicts and difficulties my arise in the preparation of original agreement or even the forstmann of a of a settlement agreement just like why we are on appeal now however and that's why nor the best way the parties request the nor industry to retain done of course parties can and or or agree to a different written agreement in the future but what should matter is what you agree in front of the federal judge placing on the record and i also want to play out in the agreements it is not complete until reduced to a formal writing no binding contra result until it is done and that's  of course me to look to other evidence that could inform what the contract actually is not here the contract is the settlement on the record before federal judge where appellants and its counsel seven said yes yes yes multiple wanted included and the terms the restated on the record before touch him it is simply if something in addition is no different than what was at issue in masterson and again if you look at page fifty two of the excerpts of record you can see that clearly when agreement was finding or any suggestion that there was some sort of integration caused as there aren't other in court settlement agreements if you look at the all you know dayana case on which i davis relies heavily one of the terms that was reciting on the record is there are no other terms this is the complete agreement