that same lawsuit the parties underage was stipulated judgment which is the basis for the current appeal and the motion to enforce a stipulated judgment in the district court of notes there were three prongs to the stipulated judgment there was a two year restrictive company of poor us asked one year for other competitors two years was for again bigger competitor uss and was negotiate areas have returned to connecticut to work for us as which would be in breach of the restrictive common in the stipulated judgment and we sought after reaching out for a cease and desist and receiving no satisfactory response or at least not the compliance that we were expecting we went to the court for her motion to enforce the judgment on the court the district court found that mr eric mysterious was not in contempt of the restrictive covenants particularly with respect to the working in the g r geographical area citing an economic necessity which is i guess brings the main predominant issue in this case which we found to be clearly erroneous based on the required report and just didn't go further than that and that's part of what you're can claiming in error in but why should we just read that is his rejection of those additional claims he did you know take the whole matter kind of under advice meant and you know give you a decision you have you are not i mean that's not outside the realm of reasonable possibilities in this case i think in order to find if you did though d in looking at  the his decision to fight the economic necessity what we're asking this court to do is to review the africa or error and based on what i my reading of judge bolton decision in conduct in connection with really the only evidence that he can rely  operation to get those three factual prongs is insufficient to make what i would think is a logical leap to an economic necessity argument just that he got the decision he got the assignment and decide well i want to go back to connecticut i don't want to but my orders there's no binding you know no knowledge that i know that u s s knew about the restrictive agreements or that he made any effort hey you know us us i've got this restrictive company there are other places you can send me let me ask also with respect to your claim for fees attorneys fees and costs and so on did you make a submission the specific submission to the district court for particular i'm out there was associated with bringing the action i did not your honor m this could be an error on my end but my experience has been when connecticut state and federal is asked for the attorney's fees if they are granted a reasonable hearing is found there after i don't normally send essentially  year restrictive covenant with respect to us yes it was a bargain that all parties entered into area especially i know to resolve the underlying case and finding that you know we were unable to enforce this agreement not just a restrictive company but a court ordered stipulated agreement that included a restrictive common and i believe eric was entitled the benefit there it brought at the very least one force the stipulated judgment and that he should owners may please the court you know the weighty issues i've heard argued today before this augusta court makes me feel as though a sparrow into the rafters of a great barn with this case i think the crux of the issue is whether or not the appellant got exactly what it asked for the simple matter is that this record's pretty clear that the district court made no error and the reason it didn't make familiar with these parties a year before it he had heard the preliminary injunction hearing three days of testimony he knew the parties the witnesses intimately he had judge their credibility and he knew essentially what their heartbeats were and i think if one reads between the lines he knew what the intent of the parties were and the intent of the party who is the essentially to make as much trouble for ace d rather low level managerial employees like which one of the reasons that occurred which is in my brief is that his uncle morrow took great when mr arius left a royal flush to work for us as was a bigger competitor now while the appellate might argue that judge bolton this perceived war glossed over findings of fact or errors of law it's pretty clear that the remedy or the more appropriate remedy for such errors would have been a motion for reconsideration a royal flush flush that remedy damper real poorly by failing to file such a motion so it asks you to look at the record a new without having attempted that remedy and i think let me interrupt for just a minute if i may to ask one question there was one aspect of the district court's opinion that that puzzled me with where he when he said that there's an insufficient basis for finding strauss's violations willful to war the imposition of attorneys fees the couple other places where the court seems to apply an understanding that wilfulness finding is necessary to support an award of attorney's fees and costs in this circumstance but  determine whether his order had been so willfully or flagrantly violated that a hearing on attorneys fees was required just both made the decision his order was not so violated and having the benefit of the evidence that he had a deuced during the parlor hearings he understood completely that u s s directed mr areas to reply to return back to connecticut and harris had no decision making under advisement thank you thank you and that is the last case to be argued on the calendar so i will ask the clerk to richer in court or