full we don't have a judgment yet and additionally there the issues here are still outstanding issues with regard to damage is and with regard to punitive damages and we are to hear that they en their appearance that they are two for the hearing on damages issues and the other issue your honor is that the tardiness with which the pell appeared put the case in the posture in which it was and is a completely following is because even even if the rules that judge someone invention don't strictly apply and i'm not sure about that publishers assume they don't i don't think you take the position that the district judge just was without authority at all to revisit the default right i mean the district judge could have realized i made a mistake on th now new information with respect to the fall so i'm not going to reconsider whether it was appropriate to enter the default and if the district judge does have authority either to rule or under inherent authority to do that then it seems like the standard would be full well known your honor when first of all we have rules in place that particularly point to a point in time when a rule can be used and not use i think that's a critical factor here additionally what the court failed to give proper consideration to was the delay of a pelleas appearance in the case they sat on their hands they appeared at the th hour and there fails to appear at and default judgment is entered they had notice their justice doesn't apply then their argument is forfeited and that is an over me yes and i don't think that they should be given special consideration merely because they are a sovereign this issue applies to sovereignty as it does to all parties and if you purposefully choose the wealthy nation th discretionary element that is an element of in that it has application and if the test kitchen has that three problems and there met in this case then the lay necessarily forfeit their opportunity to present a four month convenience argument based on an arbitration clause which is contested and that and that is another factor as well that with regard to  and in their in their brief it's integrated inconsistent because on one hand they want the arbitration or certain provisions of it and on the other hand they are putting forth that there is strict construction of the rules and that if we're going to it's not raise below fifty five dollars c and fifty four dollars b were not raised below at all they filed the wrong motion and they had they had to do that because they were late on their fifty nine in motion which was had twenty days to do that and show up until eight months later and if we're going to have rules i would beg the court to have strict construction of the rules because otherwise the party below could rule and therefore i think i think it behooves the court and argue to the court that strict rule construction should be a political precedence suggests that foreign sovereign should be treated differently in these types of common indies types of contacts like what about practical concepts only to the extent that only to the extent that they have an argument that is viable to be united arab emirate case which i actually argued twice before this court and therefore we were beyond that point and there is nothing in the precedent to say that simply because you says that a ruling on immunity is sufficiently final for purposes of bringing it to an interlocutory appeal we were very cautious we wanted to do the highest standard possible i think that the lower standards could have been applied but if it was in fact more appropriate to use real fifty four dollars b or rule fifty five dollars then we would have had just to satisfy a lesser standard so i don't see why have practical concepts versus bolivia that is practically not entirely practically on a horse with this case where a default judgment was entered and then the foreign state came in and argued both immunity and an arbitration clause which the court allowed this court allowed even despite the fact that the foreign sovereign had entered after the judgment as far as isn't doctrine and i guess the question is you know why should i quote a book considerations allow a foreign sovereign to bring a claim so late i mean is there any limit to when such a bought i think there probably is a limit i don't think this case suggests a limit but i think you know in the zuckerman vs spader case which is not a foreign sovereign case but in that case it talked about when it's too late to raise an arbitration clause for example and so in that case there had been lots of litigation the party had appeared and acted as if it was fine to litigate the case in a court in this case it's different because to the extent the embassy c proceeding the arbitration clause was raised i raised it in my st filing with the court where i mentioned it i reserve the right in my st appearance with the court to raise any and all defenses i had just been retained for weeks i didn't have my arms wrapped around the whole case and then we filed our will sixty motion we raised rule sixty four for sovereign immunity and will sixty six for the arbitration clause so this case  certainly does not pose the limit or to mark the  line finally i wanted to point out that we did not concede anything with regard to the rules the standard and anything regarding as premature and not a clickable they could have as pointed out filed any number of things as i said before they were at a time on their fifty nine they failed to raise fifty five which also was  and fifty four b as well and there are because of the outstanding tests the ruling of the court was inappropriate we would assert that this is a quintessential case for the that matter after the rule sixty was determined it was a final judgment in that matter and there was consideration  anticipated that at that time we would present evidence or the courts could have done what the southern district of new york does and that is to say put all your evidence in at this stage and get an additional hearing is required we will conduct one but to simply the case was such that if you merely allow the defendant the appellee to come in and such a late stage with prejudiced program prejudice and otherwise to the appellant then they should not be plaintiff should be given every opportunity to be heard on the contested facts and that was not that did not occur in this case and we've seen that to be reversible error thank you counsel thank you counsel ok senator thank you