it please the court the threshold question in this case is very simple it's whether by dismissing the complaint with prejudice the court actually dismissed the entire action or just the complaint well this co already answered that question if what the court had wanted to do was to dismiss the entire action it is to be dismissed with prejudice in the case of mountain home flight service versus vexes baxter county arkansas that the way to do that is dismissing it with prejudice  although technically the nd order just deny our motions so technically the case i believe is still dismissed without prejudice and i don't i've been her our standard o law when it found that each and every thing asserted that each and every action asserted by the plane of required the defendant to be a successor in interest of aspen that simply not correct the you look at page four dollars of their brief this is where they pretty much concede that we do have a legitimate interest they are claiming they're allowed interest not under the engagement letter which is what the court found that you then goes on to say in each case without taking into account any interest amount payable to the holders person went to that certain letter agreement june rd two thousand  agreement even references that the document that the court found that we didn't have standing to challenge is the one that does not provide for interest so in our case the court cared by failing to recognise that there was a case or controversy between the holders d because it's a set amount of money and we're entitled to clearly but we are not suing them for breach of the engagement letter we are suing them for attempting to violate the c v r agreement which is our contract they're not a party to the  it is that claim is not right pass the money to it right agent who then distributes it according to what oh and so we have to give terminations of what is actually two  two as we are before the writings of composites properly distributed if we don't get some kind of an indication of what they're what the basis is for their calculation before the current arbitration is is and we don't have a way to get that determination at that point it will be too late i see i have approximately three minutes left if you have no more questions right now i would like to reserve that for a bottle district court used its discretion in denying the motion to amend the complaint and whether or not the district court views discretion and done motion to remove the judgment i did not leave the underlying decisions for th motion i think that's fair that's correct i've written that above two or three bands thirty so so i politics so that the rule fifteen standard that clique should be liberally granted is not a political when the case has been ruling and to the close and discovery and without a proposal and then pleading on the table can be almost summarily denied whether whether the made were was dismissed the case because the complain exist but it does exist and you can have a motion to reconsider on legal grounds that this brecht your honor where you interpret the motion to amend the judgment to be a motion to reconsider i think that district court also addressed that issue by saying we're a to even consider the legal arguments i want i'm going to state that all plaintiff did was repeat its original target it's that's what the district found so if you deem it a motion to reconsider all by believe it would again be mountain home and then also the th circuit case of zero men or something like that but i would just like to briefly go over the timeline we filed a complaint and then we filed our only amendment as a matter of course because we were still attempting to identify the correct f b i are and to do something we can accomplish until they file their corporate displeasure statement in this appeal so at the time they filed their motion to dismiss we could not take advantage of violating another pleading at that time and there are courts that do not like to have competing motions to dismiss and motions to amend so we don't believe that we were base is that he says we were guilty of undue delay we were within the rules and filing time we also there was another complaint and although some some of the didn't point out the better although still not wonderfully and i nd complaint that there is a case or controversy right now and we believe that we should be entitled to litigate that and we believe that under all the circumstances the court did abuse its discretion and not allowing us even one chance to amend the substantive allegations and that we should be able to