gotten which i think has a special consideration here and they cited that five fifty eight colon versus beneficial industrial long court which is the i think the seminal case in this area at three thirty seven us five forty one and that there you have to show it seems to be on decided by the supreme court but this circuit is taking the position that if you can show that the claims that are appealable are inextricably intertwined with the claims that are not necessarily directly appealable the housing area some places in the owning rights area where if you have a statute which immunizes the conduct somehow immunizes the conduct that has been held to be considered to be valid under the second prong impairment that the statute protect against impairment of civil rights either by private parties or government in the making of force and of of contracts so my argument there is that now it's well as far as the actual facts as i read the city greenwood in the racial case i don't think it necessarily although that would have been the the i think the paradigm case of where you have a state statute which somehow criminal only there not to look at whether there is anything other than there was a contract and that's it and whether they can't even review the rationale for the what the arbitrators have decided so it seems to me th on it finishes it comes to some conclusion there are civil rights claims and federal court hasn't been adjudicated it's simply been stayed so we don't know where it might go it there's maybe only limited reclusive that maybe there's some slice that's left that they could never brought in arbitration you know i don't really know but it seems to me the only question we have is what can you appeal the fact that you've been put in the ice box for however long but even if you lose and you can end it can't be appealed you still come back don't you and we activate that civil rights action once issues and prior proceedings together to try to bootstrap one claim onto another but this this case is not that complicated what happened was del taco obtained an arbitration award in two thousand and three and f petition to confirm it as a single cause of action in the state court to confer arbitration award it's a judicial council for me checked the boxes the day before that petition was set for hearing the patel's removed that petition to the fourteen forty three had been specifically limited to actions in which a state law expressly prohibited or started made criminal  parties exercise of civil rights that are also specifically protected by federal law this is in the city of greenwood case in rachel the circumstances that allowed removal were that a federal statute gave the parties the defendants the right to remain in the restaurant after being instructed to leave and the federal law further gave them a statutory right that that no state should prosecute them for remaining in a restaurant after being asked to leave this is in the civil rights american south in the sixty's that context and the city of greenwood specifically limits section  to that type of circumstance here del taco as well pleated petition raises no federal claim it's an ordinary petition to confer arbitration award between california residents there's no diversity jurisdiction there's no federal rights claim and there's no showing that any federal statute gave the patel's any right that was denied by any california state law the room is that simple it's i'm moved to stay that case and compel arbitration because these two parties only dealt with each other under a franchise agreement when they started dealing with each other they've signed a fifty page franchise agreement that has a five page arbitration proceeding it allows discovery it provides in specificity for the appointment of arbitrators how everything is going to go in fact it's a self executing agreement it doesn't require a petition to compel arbitration in order to initiate those arbitration proceedings patel sign that they never objected in the district court that they didn't read it didn't understand it these are sophisticated business people that arbitration provision covers or start that the language never creation provision is language that's been specifically interpreted if i thought of course to be a broad arbitration clause and in the context of that type of clause it's well settled that claims that a party was fraudulent lee induced to sign an arbitration agreement claims that the parties been discriminated against in connection with the party with their relationship all of these things would be submitted to the arbitrator that's the whole point of the california and the federal arbitration acts and the district court addressed the patel's arguments one of their questions is whether that can be appealed my question is whether their appeal is moot because you've already entered the judgment in the state court arbitration so basically you're just back to letting the federal court figure out what to do with the remaining nineteen eighty one claim well the question is whether patel's were required to bring their civil rights claims or their defenses based on the civil rights statutes in we've been expecting all along the patel's to initiate an arbitration to resolve these issues they were the case with state and they were sent to arbitration if they wanted to actually have this resolved on the merits they  order that that would go to that issue because that was eventually confirmed by spirit court it was only a contract issue the stay order is a separate issue that the state order deals with our civil rights claims and and claims that also fall under the a that the district court told us you need to arbitrate those claims and those have not been arbitrated pending its appeal correct and are therefore that this is not moot certainly as to that