relief not just one theory of relief but every possible theory of relief in the complaint and they just simply haven't done that in this case in the court ignored in her decision some of the claims that we had under saks control when she entered the property well that had the effect there frequent compensation whenever employees are on an employer's premises you know where when we try the line and if it seems to me you have to look at the tubes in the time period that we're talking about we're talking about the mandatory entrance and exit security time which is just as an example we're saying that it should be compensable so that's one factor of compe sanction introduced evidence that he was so there is an issue of back as to whether he was paid for that time or not which precludes summary judgment you can if they didn't there was a trial issue of back on this record got a rod when she said as a matter of law she found is that actually as a matter of fact that he was paid for that when we had evidence they want to now and so we have security time at the beginning and at the end of the  and under apple mandatory security time having to wait for that you're under their control we're not extending anything with respect to the exits if you're any time that's what apple would reach the real issue is the drive time cla where there are multiple roads in the parking lot no there was one there is one road they have to follow that's the only way they can get to the work site where they actually install the panels well i mean that's my god that's my problem with  that plane at the not introduced any evidence that he was not paid for a single ride on the bike you ride instead they introduced two things introduced the policy which it was a generic calls me that said employees shall be at their assigned work place and ready for work at their designated starting time and the nd piece of evidence they introduced was to declarations from different people saying that i was told by somebody that we were supposed to be off the buggy by start time that's all they introduced now playing with himself in deposition testif has testified that he was paid for all time on the buggy he said that in deposition he also said that he was required to get to the parking lot to in the plane of testified and up position he got he only got on the buggy asked our time so all time on the buggy he was paid and that is from his deposition so therefore we cannot raise a is that it was never part of this case it was not part of the original complaint it was not part of the st a manic complaint and the only time that the plaintiff brought up was an opposition to summary judgment and  late stage said wait a minute where is that and they only brought it up then and the court was very clear that that you are not allowed to to bring a new claim that late in the process in and and in that case was completely different than the case here because not case as you said your honor it was invasive security check it was a service they went through back they detained them and you have to ask yourself what was the purpose of that so that procedure it was to search bags find merchandise benefit the employer what was the purpose of the of the  scam it was simply ingress and egress it is no different and scheming a car when you're entering a building to get into a warehouse or to get into an office building or even even even more similar rolling down the window  it's an issue of a throng of workers i mean sometimes you can imagine like five hundred workers trying to access a door or a single single gate at a same time he'd wait in line and they would get because they were told you have to get there that time then you can then the f p start being paid because that was control they were told to report at that time in this case you haven't insists ollie mister griffin was told to report to the parking required commute where you say you have to board the bus and we're going to take you to the to our to the parking lot a bit in the aisle to bring up another point about the shift of the drive issue which is that the reason why i'm really into so much different in the ready lo jack case is so much difference to and i know your honor was actually on that case and i was actually the lord of the road jack so i remember that is very very well the difference between that case and really a case in this case is that in that case it was strictly the commute that was controlled it was you have to drive our vehicle to work so the opportunities to run errands to drop off kids at school all of that  different routes than opportunity was taken away by the employer and therefore the courts in both cases that that it is control this is completely different because in this case i'm not talking about well to work where you have an opportunity to run errands or drop his office pool we're talking about travel at work which is where there is no opportunity once you pass the gate you can stop at a stop and eleven you can drop your kids off at school it's complete you're only on the premises and that's why we cited the anderson cases and old cases about when employees used to make claims exactly like this which is like i'm on the property i'm control i required to be here and i can't do anything else so therefore pay me for what i won't property and both california and the f l say rejected that standard and so when and when griffin says  that's the one part that is a little more control then i think some of the case law what's the purpose of the of the police car and why doesn't that exhibit control over the employees well so sometimes rule like no running or or some kind of control over the pace that you control employee while they're traveling at work given certain escalators certain things that make them go a little again things you can't the restricted areas you keep employees are allowed to travel into any room they want to on the way to work an employer is allowed to say once you get your property you have to this route to work you can get to go this fast you property and you are controlled and you have to be paid for every all time out for that that would be incredibly and yet as you suggested before that would be an incredibly significant ruling that would change workplace norms ever work as literally every employe given the supreme court's orders from court's ruling that the minimum is no longer or is not called in california then two minutes a day or minutes a day that is going to four years of back pay that would be though those where they had a mandatory x that security process because they say good that's no different than merlin you can't run the air you can't get out of the building you can't get out of the premises without going through the security process you're