to prohibit mr alexander from further employment if the  unless there's another element in this case the court found there was another element of such a claim that couldn't be proven and that's the end of that case the only element that was that issue on summary judgment was whether the interference was long haul that's the only element that was challenged on summary judgment to reach that issue you don't have to reach the issue is do it is the government had expired or whether it was now in the first instance there's a difference between whether it's valid and whether because that is all that means it's what i'm told to use that to prohibit his employment and that was the theory that was before the trial court but the trial court reversed the order and said well i'm not going to decide whether the  void or valid and therefore if it's not the side whether it's void are valid evidently i will assume it's valid and therefore wrongful as to me the trial court by the way did not even address the question as to from the onset that may make an entire question of i don't think it would in this case because we had already raised the issue but by the way how that the court mentions that void is against public policy i would still say she specifically said i didn't even consider whether this is reasonable or not and of course declaratory judgment action once you have incurred damages to the clerk's story judgment is always going to prove breach of contract to qualify for torture damages you need something else which i infer is of showing something showing malice or improper means on m r i s part added that absolutely is not the law in arizona we do not have to i does they go to the future employer and they say you cannot employ you why not because we have a covenant with a contract with them that says you cannot employ you but if that restatement which arizona has adopted and i will grant the court's observation that one of the problems is under the restatement which arizona has adopted this is a little tight factorial question and you can't exactly just say well there is one six months or a year to do it but you absolutely obtained the judgment he saw the court state or federal court says it's not enforceable can go to work for example in this interference area that we're talking about this morning if you could prove improper conduct on the part of m r i and the enforcement of this agreement essentially what mister m r i the fans the deck district court analyzed this as applied to mr alexander arizona law and this contract allows the district court to strike grammatically savable language from the agreement in order to make of whether disagreement was on its face so beyond the pale that it itself might supply the answer to what was the what was the malice or what was the improper means with all due respect your honor the court that the court did look at the non competing agreement did not ignore it as mr alexander suggests the court reviews the agreement it held that there was nothing and enforceable on this on the face of that agreement that would conduct it might it might result in an order voiding agreement allowing that employee to go to work but it would result in that in money damages essentially what mr alexander assange is the passage of time cost him ar you saying that the time between his requests for a waiver and his first day i think causes harm but m r i is not responsible for that passage of time mr alexander could have filed an application for a t injunction he could have invoked will fifty seven expedited hearing provision he could have asked for the expedited review of his own motion for summary judgment but he did none of those things but if he had done any or all of them and been your client refused to waive and had a hearing within five days and got a temporary restraining order close to the bomb whatever still no interference going that's right you may have had a right to work at the guy but he would not have been able to prove his money damages during this case which requires under all the case law cited in our brief requires an improper conduct preparing for this oral argument this morning i looked again at the case law looking requires actual ongoing controversies and lose the continental bank or the supreme court confirm that this meant that the party the plaintiff must present more than abstract hypothetical if it is a valid economic self interest your honor you can't use improper means which is to avoid conflict and last on the article three issue this was a diversity case if there was no jurisdiction the proper