mailing to meyer enterprises was adequate for service under or get under the oregon rules of civil procedure if it was the miers attempts or move the cases untimely and if it wasn't the miers notice o court is on the sure what the organ courts would decide we don't think given the test in this particular case and the court has to apply that certification would be necessary or even appropriate under the circumstances and the reason why is because the role of the federal courts say that if there's any doubt that removal was appropriate then the remain and should be the default really not the answer the st question you asked  is telling and we don't have a case that's going to stand firmly for the position that a mailing without return receipt is appropriate but we do have here is the fact that the case certified now but also be a restricted delivery and left out the return receipt request and so we're dealing with a situation that is in this undetermined it is a bit unusual when it comes to the oregon laws and as an initial matter we would that's the point is well taken just as water but i think that under the circumstances of this case in particular and that's what we need to focus on for purposes of whether or not this was inappropriate service a process that in order to resolve this case and i guess i'm not quite comfortable with your response about certification we spend a lot of time looking at  the oregon cases and we don't see anything that really resolve this and for that matter your reference to seven vs one still requires us to determine what is meant by the word service  disputed issue of fact about whether or not they passed them up for that initial position the supervisory position and given the fact that his agent was not referred to next to the candidate who  ntually received that job and he did raise that you raise the fact that they didn't ask him at all in washington labor industry experience during during his interview it wasn't listed as a requirement  quinn to the fact that some of these mistakes were actually made by someone else who he raised concerns about you know meyer is also countered and said well you know we're going to go ahead and tell our story and our position is that that's just something that was along with some intermediate court cases which talked about the fact that a mailing which is not one of the prescribed methods outlined in rule seven pm but it's kind of like as a catch all  asked to be a matter that would reasonably give notice if that that type of mailing went out return receipt confirming delivery would not be sufficient sermons the trial court had the ability to make that by the discords when a mailing that went to an office where mr shaw did not work he had visited a few times during the course of his little less than two months of employment he didn't necessarily have any information about how that office work e mail if it got left with the front desk or reception area nobody fined or we don't know when an individual or in individual actually took it in hand it was not a manner of service that was similar to those outlined in or and p p seventy the form of service that is likely to bring home notice than those customary substitute that are outlined and so the trial court i think would completely supported in being able to make that decision based on oregon law now actual notice comes up over and over mr shaw's argument and the supreme court has made that very clear for oregon to actual notice is not sufficient organ even if it's consider arcane relied on the conduct or the manner used to whether it's really calculated not say well we think or do that that would be an addict but then the removal would not have been timely but if we look at it and they balance right to me i think that that's not adequate service under us what is the impact in this case is if the nd service was valid therefore what saying because he didn't get the st job that that's part of the problem that any that that particular section i don't know what you call it it's something like washington w n i were i don't know what if that various clients response to that the job posting description has kind of a basic here's the outline of the job it doesn't include everything for example it doesn't say you have to be able to read being able to read as the electrical buildings and things like that have to go through that wash and i review process and so that was an important part they knew their projects required but they did talk to all the interviewees about that and it wasn't reason or one of the reasons why cretins you know already over you know responsibility in the st place and very hard to see that as a new thing just like or the other cases where the promotion or over the difference and you know that's in the record there in terms of the things mr anderson bringing up was over there because there were more than one project where they got the feedback l and i rejected one project that reason i'm sorry i didn't have that immediately on my but for that reason we would suggest that if there is a question and i believe that this isn't resolved under washington earned under oregon law that remand is appropriate and we think we think that that's the reason why certification would be less appropriate and just with my last minute i would like to put out what my friend on the other side has described as the reasons why why mr shaw was not given the position  the job description but also mr shaw as does the five and he was never asked about those during his interview he was asked about those after he was hired and given the fact that there's a dispute as to how important the this knowledge actually was one would think that it was important he would've been asked about it or his interview is that this is a jury question it's a question of credibility it's a question about who's telling the truth and for that reason we would suggest that that front line question whether what are the reasons that were given were pretextual should go to the jury the same thing with the reasons why his performance was considered substandard he had put into the record evidence that it was somebody else's fault and for that reason s