shot when i was a district judge i just copied the forms and you would issue a judgment a rule fifty eight separate piece of paper judgment and it would have links for the attorneys fees award and the costs and then i always thought that if a person didn't appeal that judgment but waited on waited until the numbers were filled and all they could appeal was the attorneys fees and costs awarded and it looks to me like this case is the same that even though the form a slightly different instead of filling in blanks a new judgment was initially that was different only with respect to the attorney to these because if i within thirty days of the may thirteenth order that you mentioned that the district court had labeled as a final judgment but they told me it wasn't final for seven read several reasons indeed we have people from the district court's order dated july thirtieth two thousand and three which decided the attorney fees and the impact of paragraph twenty four of the contract on the court's live guilty rulings on this merger issue was the decision that the judge made in july was required to merge your into that the sole with respect to attorney fees the court that's what i thought it was it resolved before the case was right for appeal for reasons that also apply in this particular case one is that it was there was an unresolved issue for carriageway damages in those claims were for to the case you can just play the rice and it's perfectly legal you can give the reasoning but it has no authority what we cited for the for the reasoning that is slightly in that particular case you are in particular given the facts of the clark case are very similar to the facts in this particular case and we think that when the court went through their analysis when you save the facts are similar to this case the only relevance to that is  in other words using it as precedent it doesn't tell me anything about the reasoning having any force or really being at the solution that our court has made in the past finds us we don't represented the circuit wide determination of the rule it was it was a ruling by a particular panel and it may or may not have some persuasive value elsewhere obviously with respect to the if the court had it docked it our review of paragraph twenty four it would have negated every order that the court had entered previously in the case with respect to for the makes liability and with respect to the damages therefore on that argument was that once the morals accepted the deed to the property then they no longer had any claims or cause of action against freddie mac based on the party's contract and when was the first time you made that argument to the court dress the issue but it did not address the issue until the july last thirtieth of order and that if that in fact the court here ruled in the july thirtieth order that the that that particular experience did apply then that liability in the trial on damages and entertain any questions from the court on those issues it's significant to remember in this case that the parties filed cross motions for summary judgment that were decided to first merger would have been an argument that should've and was properly raised in that initial proceeding on liability yes and spreading back now claims that form some sort of contractual bar to there's one off on summary judgment correct and that whatever substituting for the pleadings we are simply repeating that in the pretrial order that's not a stipulation or as the equivalent in the minutes metals case in the six case referred to by counsel of us agreeing that we are going to in there's not a faces for setting aside of or for reinstating an appeal for missing the time line and in this case there's nothing ambiguous about the district's local rule case and so therefore we do not believe their rule fifty four has any application whatsoever to this particular case the district court to try to amend the judgment so that you wouldn't have this problem i'm sorry in the district those issues to be tried as part of the merits in the pretrial order the parties anticipated that the court would resolve the issue in their particular fashion and so we were waiting for the courts resolve it when the court finally made a ruling with respect to