there are cases however that do address issues where the motion to compel and i'm i let me apply common sense to your to your eyes because this and it seems to me that if the district had said i'm sending this to arbitration and then the arbitrator goes through whatever proceedings amount to arbitration at some point somebody's going to come back and ask that the award be confirmed and converted to a judgment and at that point you will have a judgment but you haven't got one yet because as i understand the arbitrator still hasn't completed as your versions are continuing that's correct your honor however that that was never the subject matter of the order and what you're saying should opportunity to arbitrate other claims submitted to arbitration and then hope that in the meantime when he gets that and farm it will finally have its defenses off that's and counterclaims further what we're what's happening now is a judgment will be entered against the venetian without it having the opportunity to have its defenses its counterclaims and offsets her because those were not heard by the state court because they were subject to an  ordered arbitration those included many credit claims against these position only the contract balance claimed it included residents of offsetting a counter claims of the venetian that would reduce the award that the gets part of the verdict that elin be received in state court and what those are all words which scouring the record before the district court in during its order its on appeal not don't appear of planes that were ordered to arbitration all the planes that i've just discussed on our own list and we told your honor that these claims have to be arbitrated they are they have been ordered arbitration they are offsets to the very claims that melody is now seeking to have a judgment entered on difficulty is not only that the district court assume that assumed that the that the state court had had a full and fair hearing on the scope of the arbitration more orders that was of the sumption that he made in his finding and that's why we're allowed parsons however the district court didn't conduct a hearing or except evidence on what in fact the state court had done and if you look at the record that was put before the district court judge and our motion emergency the state it makes it clear that in fact the state court never did reach a decision on the merits of what was to be arbitrated and what was not instead what this recording was going to the district court this record made a couple of orders clarifying specifying whatever enforcing the stipulation to arbitrate and the district court when presented with your argument basically says look all of this was before the state trial judge who in essence determined the preclusion of the thick of my arbitration award by saying what was going to be tried and what was not going to try and that was exact error that the district court committed well he was ok why because the district court determined that precludes that they think of my arbitration order by sending some things to the jury in some things not it doesn't matter whether it was right or wrong mind you think the state district judge could have messed up beyond belief federal court ruled even a lot upon the full faith and credit act and parsons of the first alabama and to say to get full faith and credit he gave that on his belief and understanding not only any inquiry that he made th itself independently it was clear that he wasn't issuing an order that he thought had binding and precludes of effect on the only federal court it was not a race to the kind of finding under nevada law where you have a full and fair hearing on the arbitrations were moved power that with the state court the state court refused to do that and in doing so the state court said and maybe somewhere at the end of the day even though there might be some duplication one court or the other is probably going to have to sort out what's already been decided by the jury in this matter and whether or not what the over crater is done is was an issue properly matter race judicata or double award indicating reasons i mean there was no prevailing party in the federal action i don't think there was a final judgment federal court and during the course of your trial the state judge home to decide and  him all over the place he did an initially he said he even admitted that initially i think i'm going to have to adjust the verdict based upon the arbitration award he did so at the request at the motion of the who said let the state forward and then when we get a verdict the verdict can be adjusted by virtue of the arbitration or another judgment entered mr prout practically what happened here it would be if the state judge assuming as perhaps the parties did that the arbitration would proceed filed motions where ellen be misconstrued and misrepresented what was happening in the arbitration proceedings contending that the arbitrator was now were going beyond what it had been ordered to do was obvious fading the state courts of bill of the two just a verdict based upon that motion then the state court i think out of frustration and based upon what we believe are misrepresentations by opponents to the state court then said well i'm just going to ignore it i'm no longer going to defer the federal court can work itself out i'm just going to enter judgment on the verdict i'm going to forget about the fact that everyone understood that this verdict passed of the adjusted based on the arbitration assuming all of that is true what's wrong with just reimers question that take it up to the nevada appellate courts and convince them that the state judge overstepped his boundaries and and in the meantime why a recent decision headwaters versus u s forest service by this court it's a lexus eighty nine thirty if she's the eighty nine three september two thousand and four which held that the question concerning the verdict before a judgment was entered against it to now have that judgment entered against it and say what you can just of even if you can just appeal it you'll be ok surely that's not protecting the due process rights of the nation because it has been allowed to have  against it without having the opportunity to defend itself and the submit its claims because it complied with an order to arbitrate the very issues i think of the cases we started such a signal out of the circuit the doctor's associate case out of the second circuit at the issue with respect to the the g c case versus wilson and the zurich american versus california superior court that instances where a party is fred really protected rights such as th rights arbitrate and its right to due process covered by arbitration are being impeded and not properly protected by us they court it is ok in that instance and proper for a district court to enter in take injunctive relief against the st court in order to protect that party who has studied it to those rights i think those cases particularly the second the case in the seventh circuit clearly stand for that proposition and i don't think we should be made to have the judgment taken against us without it without i'd be more sympathetic to your position if if you weren't asking us to in essence enjoin the enforcement of a valid judgment that had been reached as a result of a multimillion trial where on the federal side of the house we haven't finished the arbitration proceed so i think that the just having a very difficult crime asking myself why we as federal judges should interfere in a state court proceeding that disparity in the way that we process this litigation you're not you wouldn't be interfering in state court proceeding you would be asking it to be stayed until the arbitrations are completed so that those arbitration awards can be properly considered and the matters that were arbitrated  can be considered by the state court and entering its judgment exactly what everyone had planned to do from the very beginning instead what will be happening is a judgment will be entered against of the nation which includes a number of the issues that are being arbitrated and the results are far different in arbitration then in state court and the state court judgments will be entered and will have to come back and argue later that oh no now you've got to do the state court judgment because we got a different result in arbitration and they're far  being violated and if so should have taken appropriate action it failed to reach that question simply said i won't reach it because the state court has already entered a judge which i believe under parsons and full faith and credit i have to give full faith and credit to ok judgment on the jury verdict after a nine and a half month jury trial and like agree with that but that's not directly confirming the conundrum that i just posed to you which is that the state trial judge never made an actual decision on race and on their view on the nation's view of parsons steele the supreme court said that you don't have the tension between the full faith and credit act the injunction act unless there has been a ruling by the state court on ways to pop yes your honor but in this case what the state court didn't do is to determine which issues should go to the jury trial because they were not within the scope of the federal arbitration order and in fact we have a history here where the state court in fact considered the very same arguments that the nation then came into the federal court  out there's language it's early in time where the state court judge that but then later we read some language in which the state court judge sort of just throws his hands up in the air and what the nation has done in their briefs is to take quotes from a later filed motion after the entry of judgment wherein we went to judge brennan the state court judge and said not with regard to the issues that had previously been ordered to arbitration and not with regard to the issues that were incorporated into the state court judgment after the lengthy jury trial but as to additional issues where we now believe that the arbitrator is going outside  jurisdiction and the reason that these arbitrations are never ending is because he is now going forward into two thousand and five to schedule arbitration hearings on issues that were never ever part of the agreement of the parties to arbitrate and never part of what judge dawson order in bringing that motion later again after the entry of judgment and after the decision of the court below which is on appeal here we had a hearing in which judge bre court judge grant and then listen to our motions where we were trying to get him to stop the arbitrator from doing more than what we think is outside the scope quite easy stuff but he said i'm not going to deal with that go to judge dawson and deal with that now so  fact enter an order and judgment notwithstanding the federal courts arbitration or and he clearly did that he clearly made the determination that he was able to enter a final judgment when he made one determination what i mean that's a determination that i can sign this piece of paper that interests judgment it still doesn't answer the legal question that the nation posits and that the supreme court judgment as to which the state court judge could apply and well now that's an argument that you did not make in your papers i think now i've i'm trying to be responsive to your question i don't believe that argument is the papers from our perspective in the  federal court judgment we're not even at that level our issue was and much stronger than the parson steele matter because what we have is that order which judge dawson himself said he wasn't sure if it had final if that if it should be forward and through a very subjective type of arbitration provision which had this process to retrospective determination that needed to be descried you know almost a case by case basis with some of the issues that w presented and so we have the federal courts and go to trial we have the state court going to trial a metaphor to get tempted to give deference to the sorter and clearly considering it and we then have the federal court saying what the state court has done know from reading the federal court order he goes on but was fleischer it doesn't have to do with the state court judge is looking at the issues that were then pending before the arbitrator  is i understand the state of the record here the judge granted thought that by the time he got to the point that he reached after nine and a half months that there would be some definitive rulings from the arbitrator that he could consider in fact the arbitration went on for so long that he had nothing and so he did what frankly i think any reasonable trial judge would do i just finished a nine and a half month trial i got a jury verdict i'm going to enter a judgment on it so there really isn't given you talk about how he clearly distinguished between those matters that were before the arbitrator that's not what happened he just entered the judgment been tried before the state you're well that's that's partially correct but there are different contentions that are being made about issues that should have been before the arbitrator versus should have been tried what you're saying r the jury completed but that not only didn't happen but now there's no end in sight quite frankly and which gave rise to our later motion which is really not the point this court that well as i was explaining earlier but  arbitration awards that were and turned and as to the arbitration proceedings that were ongoing the jury was told about those those were introduced into evidence and so it's not really fair to say that the judge had nothing from the arbitrator on which to go  there interim arbitration award winners that want us to honor there were interim arbitration awards on specific issues those were presented to the jury and i didn't and the jury was charged on the fact that the arbitration was ongoing and the jury was further charged that the of the discreet arbitration awards or something to the effect i don't want to get it exactly quoted your honor has done although it's complicated there's nothing wrong with that this is what the parties have agreed in this is what the court order and  the court ordered arbitration of all scope changes submitted in the party's respective lists with the issues of entitlement cost and time impact to be valued prospect of late presumably the parties can mitigate these same scope changes if the may have been some overlap with the arbitrators issues and so i hope i'm answering your question right because understand i think we are where we're going when the problem is i guess the problem is from the venetians standpoint it's got both proceedings are going to result in judgment for various sums of money and then the question becomes not only do they get credit in the form of offsets but is their duplications or overlap leading up to the determination of those sums of money in both proceedings and again going back to what my surgeon said previously it may be complicated but that doesn't make it something that we can't accommodate and i think that the question was asked earlier about how the mission will proceed from here let's take an arbitration also put forward any arbitration awards that were rendered to that point and had free rein to argue to the jury anything they wanted to about their claims or defenses are arbitrations so the concept that they're somehow hanging out they're not really trying their cases is just completely fallacious and i'm sure the court's not misled by that and i don't want that to be the case but the question was asked what will they do now and if they do obtain an arbitration award in the future they have an adequate remedy at law they have a federal court they can go to they have a state court they can go to they have the nevada supreme court that they've already gone to so they have other places they can go that's not the issue before the court the issue before this court is did the court incorporating the arbitration award into the furnace to meet i'm not quite sure i understand quite what it was meant to meet well and again this only applies to one small portion of the verdict there what the vast majority of the issues that were tried to during were never even involved with arbitration issues there's one small portion of the verdict that would have potentially required arbitration awards to be incorporated into the verdict and what we did and what we intended to do was to put the arbitration awards to the jury as was done and let them make the determination with those awards in place since the awards were not all complete the parties argued their positions to the jury on th you took the awards that you did have we had retrospective evidence as to what the nation at the knowledge to be the contract balance which is the issue at hand and i made that argument to the jury as well was an understanding potentially that there would be a mathematical adjustment if the jury was not able to consider all the awards and the court has now determined that that's not appropriate at this time that's not to say it might not be appropriate at a later time as the court as your honor requested but again there's a process by which that needs to be accomplished if an arbitration award becomes final it needs to be confirmed turned into a judgment and then there will be a trauma nation by whatever court confirms those awards and turns them into a judgment how then are interacts with the preexisting verdict which is now a judgment on appeal and about a supreme court i hope that answered your question fact that it was complicated to none of us would have preferred to have the arbitration to outlast the trial but they did do that and in doing the best that he could with the circumstances judge fine and acted in the is five years after the opening of the most wildly successful casino resort in floss makes history there are all of these people who built the project to still remain unpaid and that's what this is is really about an effort to find justice and to get that say that that we can't prevent parallel state and federal litigation from proceeding under our separate sovereign within the confines of federal state constitutional i think they're consistent and what we're saying is allowable matters that have been ordered arbitration to be arbitrated allow the issues that weren't arbitrary to be tried for the state court that was always the intention unfortunately that wasn't the end result of what actually happened because the judge state judge chose to enter a judgment which covered matters that was clearly ordered arbitration even that the judge take that himself acknowledged previously we're currently ordered arbitration he did that in his aug fifth order that miss fletcher mentioned he acknowledged in that order that certain of the claims compelling and we've put this in the stuff in the appendix as to what l and the thought would be done with the arbitration and yet in the brief for the state court they tell the state court that the arbitration awards are binding and entitled collateral stop