mr di's case should be reversed to remanded for three reasons now the st reason which is the reason that i'll be focusing on today is because the interstate corrections compact applies to the contract that govern the transfer of mr di from california prison facility to arizona and therefore he is entitled to a two year statutory tolling period under california code of civil procedure three hundred and fifty two point one so help help me with that part you cited in your your briefs the show me where in this actuator how you reason that the i c c would apply to this to a contract between california and course if yes your honor so while we concede that the contract did not explicitly put the i c c in the contract there is sufficient in materials within the records show that there's at least a disputed material fact that the parties intended for the i c c to apply to the contract and i ask you a slightly different question because i is concerned about the plain text i think of that compact which seems to be state to state but the contract that that i'm going to call it c c a entered into with the california department of correction to squirt something and  died i looked at it because in your server apply to the motion to dismiss you requested permission for leave to to amend to bring a motion forgive me to bring a claim as a contract right as a rd party beneficiary of that contract and that contract says that all of the california prisoners are to be are part of the class action ongoing in california and to be entitled to medical care pursuant to that contract and it's i think it's the play i'm not sure how to pronounce it the plate tectonics is the class action case pending there i don't know the terms of that class action and the extent to which what it does for the california prison or torture or shipped out to to arizona but whatever it is the contract has to abide by it do we have any more about that in the record your honor so what we do have is in two thousand and six governor schwarzenegger he made an emergency overcrowding prison population right we're familiar with it and so in the proclamation he mentions the plaza case and he also mentions and pretty much gives permission for the c c c c r to contract with private prison facilities in pursuing in compliance with the interstate correct and i'm asking a really specific question in this contract that c c a entered into with the california department of corrections it's very clear that they have to apply comply with is that the settlement in place and so what i'm trying to figure out is whether that settlement incorporates this made was the permission to bring a breach of contract law has that been did you bring one in california no we did ok so i don't understand that because you requested permission to do so would be a four year statute of limitations if you filed suit in california and name to california defendant i don't think that time has told has expired even yet as it may be november of twenty one thousand dollars the holding period has not expired yet but district court in arizona because he talked about responding at superior but it's not just the claim that was dismissed the defendant was dismissed and and yet the request that was made on his behalf once he got a lawyer was they have the ability to to amend and bring a breach of contract claim i'm i don't see that the time for bringing that claim has necessarily expired yet that's what i'm trying to to determine so my question to be specific is circumstances it was the fact that the contract between the c d c are and the c c a was created fifteen days after the murders the population were governor schwarzenegger said for these involuntary transfers to private prison facilities to comply to the course california how does that affect a court in arizona i mean are you saying that a court in arizona applying arizona law and you don't cite the arizona statute for the i c c in your in your brief under the arizona i c c it says you have to treat it as assuming it was applicable which i have some questions about given that there is nothing specific making it applicable says you have to treat prisoners that are by california or by another party state the same as you treat your own president so that seems to be the arizona  is because when the c d c are and c c a create this contract for the transfer they knew that they were bringing in california prisoners that remain california but the arizona santa party to the contract arizona didn't agree to anything look at the arizona statute it's appropriate to look at the california statute because under the california statute it says that when a pretty california prisoners transfer to another prisoner they should be confined and afford the legal rights of the sending arizona which would be enforcing has on a yes your honor and that actually brings me to the to my nd point which is that in the district court the magistrate judge erred in changing the venue to arizona from the eastern district of california and the reason why complaint that was a filed then did not name a california defendant but that they amended one did and that wasn't filed in tell arizona right so magistrate judge did not have a california defendant in front of him or her at the time the venue ruling was made is that right yes your honor but that the basis of the venue is yes the delayed diagnosis happened in arizona but it is a continuous series of events that occurred all the way to california because the delay in diagnosis led to a more difficult surgery to remove the brain tumor in california and that delay and that difficulty of the surgery that was that came from arizona all the way to the eastern district of california is what's caused the permit disabilit question about whether what as you have limitations applied so it didn't seem like it was just positive in california your honor the reason why i believe this particular order of transfer venue was dispositive is because it was essentially a you transfer for convenience as opposed to under the rule and therefore the statue of limitations from the transfer a form should apply in the district court just analyze it on its terms and and because this is neither really complicated nor novel the laws establish that the increase begins and ends with the federal court applying the state laws of the to claims even though arizona statutes do not permit it and that argument is wrong for for a few reasons st that it presumes a legal conclusion that the i c c applies in the in the in the opposition to the motion to dismiss and ask for leave to mend on the rd party beneficiary contract very did that did did the judge rule on that or what happened with that on the i'm sor this about the plot a class action other than that it was mentioned in the contract because they're bound to provide that level of care and that we don't know anything more than that we don't know anything more that's that's not in the record and it wasn't even mentioned in the opening that it doesn't apply so turning to the venue issue appellants venue arguments are wrong because it's there's no dispute here that all of the events are missions giving case where it helped that in cases where it's here and us initially improper the court should apply the transfer re forms laws to avoid the plaintiff taking advantage of more favorable loss that what he judgment on the pleadings for summary judgment to dismiss or caution in a tight minute or information made by the defendant to suppress evidence in a criminal case to dismiss or permit maintenance of class action to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which one venue is improper and the st option is to dismiss which would be dispositive but the nd option is it's non dispositive and that's simply to transfer venue to another corps in the interests of justice and here sooners there's a few points that i would like to clarify because of what is in the record and the amount that brings the issue of material dispute a fact that the parties intended for the i c c to apply to the contract between the c d c evidence rule that you're now citing i just don't recall no your honor we did not raise the extrinsic rule in the opening brief this is just a variation of the argument that the contract does apply to the i c c and this court has held that an argument is not waived if the full factual record is developed and it's a matter of legal issues and not where further factual investigation need to be conducted for this determination to be conducted so therefore there's enough evidence in the factual record to be remanded back to district court so they can decide this in the st instance whether or not the i c c does apply and furthermore just clarification as to what types of legal rights are afforded on the the i c c despite whether we look at the california statute or the arizona statute of the c both guarantee mr di the rights that he would have had as a california prisoner as that's what the statute says as the core purpose of it is to serve the best interest of us offenders and no matter where they are transferred they should always be treated in the same a legal right that is protected on the i c c because it's not a statutory tolling that's given to any person is specifically given to prisoners just like mr di so he can raise the legal rights i think he's able to do and get a remedy for such damages that he experienced because the transfer from