francis cruise line before the federal maritime commission involved and it needed refusal to deal which violates ten b ten of the shipping  and and when you when you when you look at what a reasonable transportation related basis it is we come to the definition of common carrier which they the f m c and their if if the standard is a reasonable business judgment it stands on the head of cases of the united states going back to eight seven and probably before if you look at just the stories treatise which we cited in our brief which was in the eighteen if you find that that basically they can't is that the commission departed from others it's earlier cases saying these had to be transportation of this right it did ok i saw that or and that's this new orleans decision that the l t cited right i'm sorry  commission and you argue that's a basis for reversal and you argue that the statute you have a couple of other arguments but i don't see this argument about the parting from prior precedent into the reply bri which says to get on reasonably refuse to deal they say this applies to all common carriers including passenger carrying passenger passenger vessels the court of  to ten doesn't apply to passenger vessels that would you know the commission correctly decided that it applies the passenger vests what they decided was that they shouldn't have to consider cases that that involved passengers they say we don't think the congress intended for us to reside beside passenger cases and they signed a bunch of things like people file lawsuits in our before our agency which  with dining room reservations and i ten arrears that's not what we're talking about we have a very specific refusal to deal they admit it they they trumpet that it is and it absolutely violates ten b two that they set up a new standard reasonable business judgment which is a dangerous standard it is violent tip of your decision and  case plus cases in the united states going back hundreds of years pretty close that common carriers have to except those willing to pay that they are willing to pay but that doesn't answer the question about what is reasonable basis for rejecting but someone willing to pay but it would have to be transportation related if they don't want me because i'm a democrat when they couldn't but suppos impossibility under under quantum leap and therefore we will not consider these other these other issues and so by more over issues the other issues are whether or not there were that they were u njustly refusing to deal or transportational the way they believe that one of the other you know well we had issues about whether or not we were able to recover certain items of damages with the initial river we believe that the facts as a whole do not state of all civil violation but when the complaint sometime where is that where they allege that it was vexatious litigation i mean can you tell from this complaint whether there was any our contention is that the facts that were alleged here clearly demonstrate the princess cruise lines was not reasonable in making their decision know the test is because of the commission chose to go down the twamley path here in the face of what is sixty to seventy page a l j a decision which included factual determinations state a plausible claim when there is nothing on the face of the complaint fame it on the face of their document that it had been frivolous or vexatious would be a different thing but you can't you can't tease that out from the face of this document so what am i supposed to do with a commission decision explain why they were evolving the precedent to go from transportation reasons to business reasons and what the limitations on those business reasons would be well i believe that you're constitutionally protected activities activities isn't due process and seeking redress of grievance a constitutionally protected activity well i thought it was yesterday ok what if  lawsuit had actually then meritorious and very important in identifying and say problems on a cruise line involving food poisoning or drunk pack captain transportation considerations and that's why it would be important to have a commission decision that actually explains the contours of when business decisions are in did you see that explanation of the commission decision here well you're already believe only for it being inappropriate under the shipping act to bar passage to people just because they actually show us their constitutional right to enforce the law when those laws are for meritorious litigation i just throw out that it actually would have promoted passenger safety in my hypothetical and i ask you to regulate and i'm asking you to say how i can tell from the commission's decision that that type of business decision would be unreasonable but this one is looking only in the face of this complaint well i believe that the commission addressed the facts that were before it and but no i did more than that i went on to say there was a back to let me get not of course for instance could decide it's not that the question couldn't have come to a reasoned decision in this case the question is have they done it consistent with how they set up the procedures and how they set up the statutory requirements not whether you could have a reasoned explanation agency you have wide range i just need to know where it is and here because i haven't been able to see  the best i can say is that i believe that the commission's decision demonstrates that the facts that were presented did in the original litigation which was brought under the do this dept of an unfair trade practices act the way princess got involved was that their general counsel also represented  the cruise was on a carnival vessel not on the princess vessel and there was a settlement which call basically for this never to happen and that this settlement was negotiated by the princess general counsel's office and it was done with their fingers behind their back because they later claimed that it is been done in the past the the  their in their decision which i understood if they have a full plan they're a review it's the standard is that no i do understand you but the problem is they said we never decided this and so