i went paperless and it takes more time page sixteen i cited visual sciences for a particular quotation and the actual citation should be weitzman versus stunning eight hundred and fifty seven nd six hundred and fifty three at six t the injunction was issued in derogation of the entitled junction act specifically the related geisha exception and nd the arbitration scheme it issued violates public policy the exact issue be decided by the federal court in order to have precludes effect with respect to the state law issue here there were no issues that were decided between the two parties and  if mr patel does not want to have arbitration he doesn't have to have the baker case the nd circuit makes it clear arbitration does not act without the the we shoes of the parties parties can revoke and it relied primarily upon the crawl versus doctors associate case stuart case didn't really discuss anti injunction at principles and had a brief citation but it relied on the cole case which was out of the  th circuit and decided that there was all the parties were in from the court at that particular time so there was no violence to the anti injunction act and in fact the cold case was decided on a section f federal arbitration act section three stay and if you note the federal arbitration act it gives the court that has jurisdiction over the case the primary case the case in principle in the discretion to stay or not stay depending upon various factors and in fact doctors associates tried to move for a stay in the california action in this case and they withdrew that days before the stay because part of the issue on a stay is determining whether there's a valid arbitration agreement or not so when they figured out after reading our papers that the california court was going to have to pass on the continent bilinear enforceability of the whole arbitration scheme they withdrew their withdrew their motion so and in the so the exact issue was not litigated in the federal court and assuming that mr patel raises the affirmative defense of arbitration no be a whole host of other issues that the california court would have to decide for sed they'd have to decide whether there is an there is applicable arbitration agreement between the parties here the parties concede there's none between the talent and the tree puppies so mr patel would have to invoke some sort of a stop a theory you know order to in order to at least initiate arbitration or delegation against against these and nd the they would have to overcome the the fact that the arbitration clause itself says that there is to be no arbitration against patel it's unlike sculped or a provision in that in that st instance in addition the arbitration agreement and that the arbitrator's are bound by the limitations of the arbitration agreement bulletproof vest in another case recently that was the gingras case which we brought to the court's attention that was decided in that case the court struck down in the st instance a scheme that prevented the  parties or the arbitrator from applying state and or federal statutes against public policy that followed the the mitsubishi case and the american express case where the supreme court held you have to be able to vindicate statutory rights and in this case it's not that far stretch from denying somebody the right to bring claims under state or federal statutes and denying patel well in the gingras case the court confronted the albeit briefly the delegate delegation issue in a found that there were enough problems with the arbitration agreement just looking at it that that the court can look at this agreement and see that it violates public policy in terms of denying the puppies the right to proceed under we're not just a roving commission to look for violations of public policy right i mean there's a this is an agreement in agreement that says you've got to arbitrate you can raise these points about public policy in the arbitration right well we would raise something in the arbitration is the amount of out of time you can ascertain even if we could raise these issues in arbitration but the arbitrator has no jurisdiction over patel's rights and the so mr patel is not going to be bound by anything that the arbitrator decides and if the artist traitor decides we can sue  state court he's going to be free to raise these issues all over again there's so in the foot and in the st instance the arbitration agreement has not even been invoked by mr p instance by the arbitrator and based on that judge paul directed the two parties to bring their claims in arbitration so that the arbitrator can decide how those claims are arbitrated and she enjoined parties from trying to relay to gape this question of who would decide arbitron realty in california state court something they were actively asking the california state court to remediate at that time on appeal to two parties mr bolton focuses mostly on the injunction act but i think if you focus st on delegation provision in an injunction act issue becomes more straightforward as you are was noting the arbitration act and this is a joint the next thirty explicitly incorporates aaa arbitration rules those rules give arbitrators jurisdiction to decide disputes about the scope and enforceability and validity of an arbitration agreement and under contact in other cases from this circuit this court has consistently held that when agreement explicitly incorporates aaa rules the parties have agreed to delegate questions about arbitrary ality to the arbitrator that just what happened with this arbitration agreement doctor's associates and that these have a dispute about whether to stewart do you agree with him he was distinguishable from this case i think stewart is directly on point that you know that compelled arbitration of claims brought against doctors associates development agents even though they were not before the court and only governs how they can do that not whether they can and i guess i don't really understand that argument it seems that the arbitration and provides it and couldn't bring claims against either in court or  that they arbitration agreement says that they cannot bring claims against patel but we have stipulated and continue to stipulate that everything that is alleged in the california action alleges that actions by patel that were in the scope of his agency for doctors associates and so they can bring those claims directly against doctors associates and try to hold doctors associates liable you stipulate to outside of the arbitration agreement that's just something that you're representing yes what is alleged in california we stipulate that those alleged actions that tell took in the course of his agency if they successfully prove those facts then they can recover whatever relief they are entitled to from doctors associates directly and that's the scheme that the arbitration agreement sets up to prevent parties from trying to do anything in the army unit that's just something that you've represented to the court that you are agreeing to my understanding what you know i think it is in the arbitra agreement that's how we interpret section paragraph d of the arbitration agreement that claims that any franchisee has against one of doctors associates agents will be brought directly against doctors associates and so the claim exists just as it in that situation how could a claim against a rd party for intentional interference be brought against the part one of the parties to that contract that seems logical to me yeah well i know in the st instance that that's arbitrator will decide and it may be that the arbitrator decides that claim is not arbitrary because it can't be brought against patel so that's not really before the court and it's something that will be addressed later in arbitration in our view that the claim that he intentionally interfered with the contract with doctors associates if you look at what the california complaint is essentially alleging the theory is doctors associates and brought the arbitration actions against these they succeeded in those  these franchise agreements were terminated and patel interfered with the contract by sort of helping doctors associates do that or you had some sort of nefarious purpose so you know if they prove that  the elimination of the franchise agreements was invalid it strikes me as a breach of contract claim they can recover whatever damages they would have from that from doctors associates as a as a breach of contract let me try it this  vindicate their rights because we are saying that these claims fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement now if the poppies allege something that we did not think was an action related to the franchise relationship and therefore didn't fall within the scope of the arbitration clause we would not compel arbitration of that claim the reason we're compelling arbitration on that claim is that we believe it falls within the scope of the clause and needs to be asserted against doctors associates directly because that's what the trial is agreed they would do in paragraph by addressed by the supreme court's rent a center decision which says that when an arbitration of human like this one contains a delegation clause it's not enough for a party to say that the arbitration agreement as a whole is contrary to public policy or some provision of it is contrary to public policy in need the party needs to specifically attack the delegation clause and say that that is contrary to public policy and i don't see anything in the trial of these briefs reefs and i haven't heard anything today saying that there is something about the delegation c specifically that incorporation of aaa rules that is contrary to public policies so that dispute about whether the arbitration agreement as a whole is in forcible needs to go to arbitration and then they can make whatever arguments they want based on public policy about whether those terms are enforceable and how they're going to be applied and the arbitrator will decide what comes from that and it may be that some of the claims can't be arbitrated we don't know that that's something that's yet to be decided turning last to the never be entitled to arbitration and that's directly contrary to an issue the district of connecticut actually decided namely that the arbiter really the claims must be decided in arbitration and so she enjoying that under the  should not be sent to the arbitrator under a delegation clause in the st instance has to be raised as an affirmative defense i repeat my self a little bit picking up on your hon question the interference claim that we've broad mr patel acts as both an agent for subway in supervising the franchisees at the local level and quoting mr chip policy but he's also a competitor in the sense that he owns his own franchise so the interference claim that we've articulated arises out of his activities as a competitor but includes his power that he exercises over the bodies as an agent but he was seeking for his own benefit to terminate the trip out of these franchises so that he could take over those locations that's the allegation he could take for himself  an offender can order that offender to make to enjoin them from an unfair competition but can also make other equitable sanctions on a person such as patel that can order restitution if there happens to be arrest to sion type of claim they can enjoying any type of unfair competition that a party can gauge is in t statutory right and remedy that will never be available to an arbitration against patel and it's not something that doctors and so suits can be liable for doctors and associates proxy arbitration which is what this system sets up violates the public policy against shifting these are cases that we cited earlier in our briefs against shifting liability to two from a from a to compensation functions all the deal with is that compensation functions in in terms of subways arguments they don't deal with the deterrent functions the power of the court to send a message to a violator here you have a rogue