good morning good morning siegel adam siegel on behalf of the trustees of the flavors joint trust funds to be candid my case factually is dull as dirt but it does raise an interesting and important question at least in our view may just make an assertion and see where you disagree with it i can't tell exactly what the district court in it is possible or probable that it it's also possible that the district judge look record concluded that there is no substantiation for the market rate or the going rate in the community for paralegal or law clerk time because there isn't any in the same thing basically it seems to me to be the case with respect to the pass through of costs such certain out of pocket expenses as attorney's fees while it would be incorrect to say as a matter of law they're not recoverable there's nothing in the record to substantiate that that's a common practice or well accepted practice in the community and the orders sufficiently clear that the judge did not award costs because it focused solely on taxable costs and ignored the argument that nontaxable cost of the included i don't think either any of the defendants nor the judge ever questioned whether the now that's a thanks for the one point as i went through the order and had the same reaction that that my colleague said that's the one point where his discussion of costs appears to shift away from taxable cost to whether that huge part of attorney's fees and i was kind of puzzled as to why he hadn't taken that approach earlier but i have the same perplexity that my colleagues do so and i'll show you something further to say on that i just one thing that doesn't appear in the record but after ten years of working with the rest of plans all these items fist specially using paralegals on these cases certainly that reduces the cost to the plans which is important but given the way arista set out to assess those costs against the losing employees on these cases ultimately it saves those employers money to that those costs are going to end up on their tap which is often the case in the rest of collection cases so i think that's a point that deserved being part of the record as well as you should hear from mr i understand shows first time caller ok a long time listener to basically cut to the chase your honor i do agree that if you're leaning towards the fact that with regard to the lower courts analysis of reasonable attorneys fees should be remanded either way i agree to a certain extent i do believe that it was a factual finding that the court made but if the court believes that whether it be legal or factual that needs to be basically said that they've conceded that costs under risk basically should fall under nine hundred twenty but they're trying to create a nexus between the fact that costs under civil rights act certain cost after case that has said that those caution be included but with regard to risk which we in this particular case was an act in one nine hundred seventy four there has not been one case that substantiated that in fact there's been a case  supreme court says that you should analyze off the shift in cases in the same that is going on and that is a very grand statement but if you read the case that footnote specifically is limited to the analysis of who a prevailing party should be analyzed the same way therefore the cost that they are asking for now cannot be reimbursed to them because the ninth circuit has already stated it cannot and that's  it is a footnote but it does clearly say the standards set forth in this opinion are generally applicable in all cases in which congress has authorized an award fees to a prevailing party arista collection actions are one of those instances so if outside of the arista context nontaxable fees then within your with a context that should be applied if there were going to be a division it might be between remedial statutes like the civil rights act and those that aren't but arista falls over here with the remedial statutes so for those