question stand back and you know you've broken down exactly in the way that i did it stand it answer the specific question of what can we do when a court deny the motion to compel arbitration that it doesn't reach a definitive decision at that did here on issues two and three relating to the coaster reka agreement and the online booking agreement the court essentially denied it without prejudice let the parties live to fight another day putting looks at when apart when has a party actually moved to compel arbitration i mean it's court notes that involve circumstances where the defendant you know her family judgment on down merit and then also in that merit based summary judgment motion asks for arbitration yet again i went back and looked more tickets during the party at the deli kept saying we need to arbitrate we need to arbitrate so did kafeel to the form of the motion and it court craig here to figure out when a motion fault with conception sixteen and we need all of those criteria we knew for summary judgment to compel arbitration why did we face summary judgment in our caption well the motion for summary judgment at hearing to the court directed to compel arbitration with the only issue raised in the motion and there was no litigation on the merits i do before the filing of the nd motion nothing on the merits was discussed in the motion and the order does only one thing it deny my client request for arbitration so i think there's an end conflict between devon robotics and order to get this case to arbitration with what actually happened here well i think you're on i want to go back to and look at and i believe they are docket entry sixteen and seventeen and i  was filed i'm looking at defendant payless car rental notice of motion to compel arbitration it was not a rule being twelve the fixed motion in the sense that we're staying the complaint  really which was leaked may be granted it sought one thing and only one thing to compel arbitration by and i understand that my question though is it the way that section four is myriad circumstances find myself in a situation where my client has a right to arbitrate the plaintiffs filed a complaint so if the court needs further support for this either through talking searches or others it is not at all atypical for the st filing in a federal district court to be a complaint filed by a plaintiff not with standing the existence on a that that bond although the of the actual person told lytle to them are different is that it got me exactly on here because that's that you know there's circumstances sometimes you know someone will bring up on the phone and i'm not going section two of six which talks about one arbitration and i have my question is why you know i don't know if i had satisfactory answer to that question other than when the motion which filed it it  quote rennell jack a close quote how can we hold that the language in the u s rental agreement provided reasonable notice under new jersey law well your honor did and i think they did what the district court here is impose requirements for incorporation by reference is fine oh placed in either new jersey or florida law and frankly none of the plaintiffs said if i may say this that they didn't understand what the term rental jacket met and the question under control in contract law contract law one o one when a party signs an agreement even if they didn't read the agreement even if they later after the fact says that they didn't understand the agreement there is in law and in the absence of fraud and there is no fraud asserted here there is a conclusive presumption that the parties have read understood and will be bound by the terms of the agreement they signed now here the agreement that the document signed says i agree the charges listed above are estimates and then i have reviewed and agree to all notices and terms here and in the rental jacket the parties the plaintiffs then were given a single document that literally was a jacket and also said terms and conditions of the rental so the question is law new jersey law this court's decision in schwartz and the legion of other cases including rental jacket cases the court looks at the agreement and the writings and ask light it made a finding that there can be no incorporation by reference if one there is no document number in the agreement identifying or document number date identifying the incorporated document there is no such requirement in the law and by the way plank it don't even play and just try to justify the district court decision based on that rationale nd the court said i find that there was no incorporation by reference because the plaintiffs were not handed the rental jacket before they put their john or jane hancock on the rental agreement there is and this is where it's an error of law there is no such requirement in new jersey or florida law and i call the court's attention to a long list of cases cited in a brief edgewater when judge greenaway was in the ditch your court go inventory recovery  jersey lot has a beyond doubt with firemen that the identity have to be ascertained beyond doubt and here you have a circumstance where you you quoted us language from the the agreement about the charges and it makes the reference to rattle jacket and that on and then that document you would like us to claim had been created by reference called itself something different it calls itself a level document jacket i know which one difference word but it is different and it was not something that the that the plaintiffs would have that they had already executed the agreement and it wasn't even something that they thought that would be reasonable for them absolutely must be named or have a number the point is there must be something that puts it beyond doubt and there's neither a name nor a document number nor a clear heading nor was it provides ahead of time so it's true a number or name is only one way to put it beyond doubt but your cases are not in this context and they're not addressing consumers and most of them are not even decided by new jersey courts i don't understand how we can say we can take this away from a jury under this very demanding you know beyond doubt standard is really demanding i agree i agree you're wrong of it it's demanding but let me let me answer the question this way and i will in a moment flip to another piece of paper that i have what we do have in this circumstance there was only one additional document handed to the plaintiffs and and we know it doesn't have to be handed to the plaintiffs before it's signed it was literally jacket the document and it was signed describes literally what the docket homelife it was a jacket they were handed a jacket and it says you agree to the terms and the jacket and the jacket says here are the time there this is not different than the other cases where a party signed  agreement and they were told that you law abiding by the terms and conditions you will abide by the term and another document it's not it if the plank it were handed i dry and stack a document with ninety seven there's a little hole jacket it's about to get until after the plaintiff finding the dotted line correct correct they are told that you are agreeing to what's in this rental agreement car is handed the keys and they would not be charged if they said i know i don't want to participate in this and that agreement that again i'm going back to the district court again and i do these are not in handed to you the only water used on there is nothing in new jersey lot and said that and there are cases applying jersey law that find that you do not mean that not even quinn says you need to get it before you sign it and rd the debt in a circumstance where it says rental jacket the jacket down one additional document that the party regime and it doesn't matter that it wasn't and in that rental jacket you're handed a jacket in a jacket said here the term why did why in your briefing do you speak of the fact that the jacket was quote available to people that i think i'll add it well jane choice we met we make that point because you talk about the party to have an opportunity to review if that request review so we wanted to make it very clear clear i mean i guess there's i guess maybe some internal conflict between the earlier pages the devil robot with the end of that robot well i mean the court makes it clear that you have to have  that are now out that i'm not sure we did and that and whether or not it's final however if we do get that then they can look at whether or not you're allowed to appeal a non final determination which arguably then that would allow you to do this fact here is this issue of was there or not there's competent evidence let's stick with the i guess the booking website claim three issue whether or not there's competent the court will review that issue determine either to affirm or not and then we go back for a determination on the motion to compel arbitration which is what we should be doing anyway so i'm not sure how this is anything final in the manner in which saying that standard doesn't capture those two types of orders and if so why aren't they captured  discovery that the feds were permitted to turn over every every brought to determine the intent of the famous contract so that they prove that there was mutual sam that's what they asked for that's what they asked the court to do they said matter what the plaintiff did so here we went in the cells that full factual record and the district court based on that full record analyze the transaction and analyze new jersey for the wall didn't want to begin to lose and some of them don't it might as well i mean the core pointed out correctly you look at the pictures this document pretty big as well and in a different building or a different country were  go jacket terms that i have reviewed and agreed to all notices and terms here and in the rental jacket and it filled with titles facing issues and problems that make it even harder to read and understand the of the document you have to open it all were were to find out rental terms and conditions there is no word jacket in there at all on any point in time you have the testimony of the plaintiff here  that i have no idea what the term rental jacket is and i think it's important to note that i don't like all the cases cited by the defendant and he said there's a list of them up that there isn't every one of them's been distinguished by the district court different plane kept paragraphs are your own are in the right it says and the other panel of this quote rankle document jacket so it does have the words they are i take your point i understand what you mean when read the fine print of that document to determine what it may or may not be all i don't think efficiently described referred to if we're that far along in the process we can't have something as a fish and you describe that to be sufficiently described in the rental agreement which is a one page document with no capital i term as to that the fact that a rental jacket would be the title or a number of documents right you know we don't have that so how can you say that sufficiently describe and again unlike all these other cases a lot of on by the defendant here we have testimony and we know whether or not it was sufficiently described a defendant that that question to the plaintiff in the plaintiff that i don't know what you're talking with the court kind of repeat myself but in lieu of the difference is that it was specifically identified with the exact terms with the capital of the so that somebody reading the rental agreement might understand that there is a nother document  that would have the additional terms and conditions and again you've got to look at the facts here although miss watson said there is no factual determination made by the district court i don't believe that to be true in making it the vision under flo no way that this term this industry jargon use of the word rental jacket in lowercase letters would allow any could cut them or a person off the street what then figure out that that standard or review section of the brief that this court cite and i cite any engages in a non deferential plenary review of the district court's order denying arbitration and i think where the rubber really hits the road in terms of the court's determination no sufficient description or is a legal error with the key consideration one of the key considerations being that it was not given to the plaintiffs prior to signing the agreement that it's simply not the law also this notion on the jacket and there being confusion and as i was pointing out when i talked about the fact none of the plaintiffs said they didn't get the jacket they didn't get the all important jacket that contained the terms and i will not repeat myself again but it's difficult to imagine what  talking could be the rental jacket they were only given one document it literally was a jacket and the plaintiffs were told when they signed to the agreement to look to the jacket for terms and the jacket said here are the terms moreover when it comes to assertion that my friend on the other side makes about well there was a fine print they get you know there was an arbitration agreement in there it's better cetera et cetera that really rubs up against the contract law one o one conclusive presumption and less there has been some sort of fraud and as we explain in our grief there has been fraud alleged in a difficult process difficult to prove that a person signing agree  agreement presumed conclusively to have read the agreement even if they said i didn't bother to read the agreement even if they said because they didn't bother to read the agreement i didn't know for instance there was an arbitration clause or a penalty clause or a form selection clause in there and then i think those are on the merits and i don't think i have anything further to say on jurisdiction other than others understand of equate were permitted to appeal issues two and three we did appeal issues two and three my friend on the other side talked about needing a trial we believe the record put before