to reserve three minutes for argument thank you to the court for hearing this matter today we appreciate the court's time and attention but st thing alive to state is this matter should be treated no differently than any other case concerning the enforcement of arbitration agreements in the workplace except it is being treated differently because north which imposes on lawyers a higher burden to overcome when an age a employee signs an arbitration agreement nor is there any authority which states that a stray employees cannot be subject to an arbitration agreement just as with every other walk right in the united states in this matter economic dress and this economic duress defense has been applied when one party has done a full act which is sufficiently corset to cause a reasonable prudent person offense is considered by the courts as a last resort defense and in this matter the court found out that it was wrongful here because on several grounds he said it was the arbitration agreement was not  given to the plaintiffs when he was in mexico so before it came to california that the plaintiffs indicated that he thought his v so they had would only allow him to work for al queda they couldn't work for somebody else that he was living at the place it was living just argue well this is a low educated person so therefore we should put ourselves in those shoes are of a low educated person who maybe may not have that and i don't disagree with that because except as you know if you ask most people come from another country to work here maybe you know they will fly into different places they want to work where they can get a job that is not about oh i have to only work for this one company who's assisted me to come into country to work here so are you saying the district court's finding california so there'd be no reason to have to go through this paperwork process where is it is it i think i read somewhere in the police brief that that corn actually changes practice and does actually now  his conference because generally employers do you know change practices even though they don't think they did anything wrong but when you get sued you know you're going to do things to try to make it like less of an argument that someone can argue after the fact so i don't think and i think the district attorney supplemental jurisdiction over that and how is that a common nucleus of a fact with the claims about minimum wage out how do they just record have jurisdiction over the privacy tour claim you're right and that's a  question and my side i don't know off the top of my head because it's been a while since the scott removed i believe the court viewed it as part of part and parcel of the last wrongful conduct since is this this is an employee right employer dispute so i progress and undue influence as a matter of california law and either of those contracts defenses is an independent basis on which this court may affirm with respect to economic dress district court found that arbitration was never mentions when plaintiffs was discussing the job prospects and filling out paperwork to obtain his visa in mexico and that's a fact finding number ten the district court also found in fact finding number thirteen that the workers understood that they could only work on that h two a visa for elkhorn hacking and their understanding of that fact was was based on  at's the problem i have with it maybe it's your honor defendant never offered any contradictory testimony from any of their witnesses in fact christine bermudez when he testified of the trial gave testimony consistent with the fact that the workers could only work for packing while on that h two a visa and as he was the employee directly responsible for recruiting workers and he was the person who had conversations about the court made is that by the time these workers were given the documents to sign they were already in housing that was controlled by aren't having where their supervisors lived in the hotel with them they were dependent on elkhorn for many of their meals and for transportation into town in order to buy items that they needed or just send money home to their families which elkhorn supervisors knew that the workers did because they stopped the bus on the way home on payday specifically for that  could have presented these documents for signing it would have been less coercive than what they did that certainly would have been one to do it earlier when they were still in mexico before spending over a week's worth of pay to obtain the visa and before beginning their work for l corps and the other thing that made the timing here particularly problematic is that the papers were presented before the workers were ever paid for their work which does make this  to the contrary all of the documents were treated as mandatory in the sense that the workers were lined up and when they got to the front of the line the representative of where he was seated at the table simply flipped through the pages and s had to drag task is to determine whether a lap the district court clearly heard in those findings yesterday and those findings well supported by the evidence and under the or wrongful conduct under economic dress is that a question of law or fact or a mix question it's a mixed question your honor but there  that the plaintiffs have in this case is similar to the planes have been morrison foerster where the planes if there was eight months pregnant she was faced with the loss of income and the potential loss of her home he over a week's worth of wages to obtain his visa and had leased or trips for one town in mexico to another to try to obtain an application for this work for one so in addition to the background economic vulnerability he already that he wouldn't be paid was a reasonable claim to have been told i'm numerous occasions starting with his very st day of work and this is finding in fact seventeen that if you don't want to work hard if you don't follow the rules we can send you right back working this our intuition that we've been talking about took place right there in the beginning of his employment right after he got to california so this thing about workers being told you have to do your job and all that being that has that are that are that  presented to the district court yes it was part of the predicate but what i'm saying is that the court unreasonably and an error of blight upon that to make his ultimate finding and to find this i'm do is lawrence and about is no different than other people other workers who are in the united states who sign off on an arbitration agreement this is the same argument that you get that is made by employees here in the united states who say hey i was forced to sign this and i a workers who are here from mexico council that wasn't the only factual circumstance that was considered by the court if these workers had just come from mexico and nothing else that happened i you can look at the testimony on its face and say this was an error for him to make this decision to essentially reject all of the defense witness testimony because she essentially this is contrary and if you look at the evidence that was for him this was it to find these two extreme circumstances was incorrect thank you counsel thank you to both counsel the case does argued