defendant's motion is that he forgot to sign it and that small oversight took on outside significance in this case because of two distinct areas that the district court committed each of which independently warrants reversal  here st the district court improperly struck mr marchers refund or federal civil procedure eleven without considering whether that error caused any prejudice to the death and nd the district court then improperly granted the police defendant's motion to dismiss without considering its merits now i'd like to begin with the rule eleven issue because i think the common ground on that issue although it resolves this appeal to important points appear to be undisputed st it seems to be undisputed that the district court have discretion to overlook the missing signature and in addition if it's similarly is the undisputed that in exercising its discretion the district court should have considered whether the defendant suffered any prejudice from the lack of a signature that is enough to reverse here because the district court did not conduct that analysis or by that standard instead it understood rule eleven to require striking the briefs on the basis of the missing signature even if it easy to understand why i think tench was operating under that understanding because that's what the rules sense well your honor i think the judge was right to pay heed to the text of rule eleven dollars and i think it's focused on the word must in rule eleven a but there's at least one competing must that the district court should have taken into account and that's federal rule of civil procedure sixty one dollars which says that at all stages of the proceedings the district court must disregard all errors and defects that you not affect any parties substantial rights so i think that that was one consideration that should have led the district court to temper its action here and in addition i think reading rule eleven a in the full context of rule eleven makes clear that the errors here was a purely technical defect the presence or absence of the signature of mr marketers really was not relevant to the just report's ability to enforce the substantive provisions of rule eleven and i don't think there's been any question raised here by is necessary for that purpose because under federal rule is that will be he also finding or otherwise advocating the motion have the exact same effect so just based on what mr rule also says for the signature requirement that it must be signed and so were eleven a has two masts that are mandatory agreed to that yes your honor well i think many district courts commonly do overlook errors of this type and consider the merits anyway and i think that's  discussion that you're referring to doesn't have anything to do with what was that issue in that case there wasn't an unsigned cleaving in that case there was a failure to file a i guess a disclosure statement of some kind  so it was it was that discussion in depth to about the requirements of rule eleven and sort of by way of analogy it wasn't it's only not a holding so let's just go into the case before that that's important here ever there had been towns amount to the absence of any signature whatsoever and the important principle i think it laid down there is undisputed in that case the error was not corrected and the district and this court in that case still out of step with the texts and proper understanding of rule eleven i was in law school when these amendments to rule eleven were adopted and this was like a major big deal sea inquiry into the facts and law had been accomplished and that the pleading was well grounded and facts and law if so i question whether our case law both  although they certainly give just records and discretion to consider all the circumstances which case they do require as district courts to recognize that they have some discretion in how they apply the rule i don't understand how you're reading that into the rule that says must and even the committee notes to the rule support that it's mandatory just from a plain reading of the text i don't think you can around the mandatory nature district court created such a conflict here by relieving defendants of their burden under saddle rule well it's not even sure that the local rule is in conflict with the rules of civil procedure because the local rule just says that the court is entitled to disregard a pleading that is strict can and can will accordingly but it doesn't lift the obligation to actually address the not taking the nd nd step of the analysis to actually address the contents of the motion interface but but again i don't i don't see a conflict between the two  we're we're not arguing that rule on its face or in all of its applications conflict with the federal rules i think the text of the rule itself is somewhat ambiguous it says the district  presumed there is no opposition to the motion and i think it's unclear whether that means presume that there is no rift that is going to be filed in opposition to the action or presume that there are substantive prejudice or dismiss those claims without prejudice that would that would certainly be better your honor and more consistent for the reasons court the judge question have come out the way you're arguing is it your position that the st circuit just got it wrong and they only looked at the text and didn't rely on on the burdens that have been developed under the law  to dismiss your argument on the motion to dismiss the court if a response isn't filed is free to grant it without objection would conflict with our plea or case law on summary judgments which are similar why would it be ok to say well for summary judgment if you don't file a response the court still has to consider the merits without the response but for motions to dismiss that doesn't apply haven't said in the summary judgment context that you are waving your right to have the court determine on the merits i agree if you don't file a response then you don't get to put in a response or the court doesn't have to consider what your arguments are but in the summary judgment context is still court the court still has to evaluate whether or not you're entitled to summary judgment based on the moving party submission it but that wasn't the basis and it wasn't a and i know there's case all right we say if you fail to prosecute you can dismiss the case but there was never any warning along those lines and he was still prosecuting other aspects of the case so i don't think we could go inconsistent with the record mr mark here did attempt vigorously to oppose this motion to dismiss and this brief was stricken only for the lack of a signature and it's not consistent with this court's opinion and don't view lawyer which considered exactly the argument that the defense counsel is making and said that you can't just assume that it's that it's an abandonment it's equally likely that they're standing on the planet and finally just very briefly to address them the merits i think there are a number of reasons to doubt that defendants carried their burden here the complaint the track attached extrinsic documents and they didn't explain why that was appropriate on it will be six motion they made a statute of limitations argument that didn't apply to all of the defendant minimum there was prejudice here because the display just missile was with prejudice and not without prejudice and have the district court considered the merits it would have been required to assess whether there was whether it be appropriate for