although this is the second time this case reaches this court we do not contest your today that our kids that our claims have been dismissed by the court below and for an inconvenience grounds we do not consist either that wever we stand before your court today because the question as to whether defendant a billy foundry can tell the french court that this case should be he should be heard in new york and has not been examined well it was examined when you were last before the court because the panel discussed the evidence you put before the court on that occasion if i ruling i looked at the record and there is no official ruling on it but it was extensively discussed at oral argument so it was effectively excepted i mean i also don't know how the panel could have ruled as it did without basically accepting the papers and and ruling that there had been a consent teachers stiction in france and that your arguments to the contrary did not have merit well you know i understand you disagree with that but to the extent that those arguments that they were litigating in france while they had made representation in the united states was that all considered by the prior panel i don't think  the we the district court decision was confirmed by a summary order which states the grounds on which this court has deemed reasonable to confirm the district court decision below and in those grounds there is no mention whatsoever about the new evidence that we discussed during during the hearing instead what the decision clearly says is that time and that almost i had no objection to being in france that was discussed during the oral argument during oral argument my perception is that we discuss whether or not to take into consideration is evidence i sense of finding american plaintiffs other arguments which as we've just said were extensively considered so you think they needed to say something explicit about those pendants motion in order for that to count i believe so you ought to because the only reading i can have was that to the extent that the last panel said that they had to greet two jurisdiction in france they represented to that panel that they didn't want to litigate in two places at once that once this united states litigation was final they would withdraw the french opposition now if they don't do that then you would happen basis for rule sixty p motion in front of the district court so why isn't that the appropriate way to let this play out the american action as they've represented that when that happens their withdraw their opposition france and if they don't do that you can come back to the united states court with the rule sixt and they have not been compliant with the dismissal at all and my problem is that as of today they're open still stands now of course we could wait whether they're not objecting there's to action their objection and that was what the commitment was that they had made  that they would consent to personal jurisdiction but they are objecting to is proceeding into fora at the same time you know is that why does that contravene the original order well you're under french law before french courts laws well if these proceedings and and they do not and they exceed two going forward in the french courts and if they don't exceed to going far in the french courts then you come back here and complain but we're not at that point court especially while the orders d is in place it is not up to them to decide in forms not to by by what they said here in new york just because we call into question the decision of the district court  know you want to reserve some time so let's hear what your opponent has to say and give you a chance to read interpose at defense we agree with the comments of the panel that the issues were thoroughly considered in the first appeal they were not going to scuttle or argument they were presented to the cordon several letters submissions to requests for judicial notice that were both the merits panel it was featured in the reply briefing and prominently at oral argument as well as in post argument submissions we would respectfully submit that it was before the court and resolved by the first appeal if there are no other questions time you're honest gregory hauser from wishing gehring for al foundry at this point your honor i don't think there's really much more to say beyond what i said in my last letter to the first panel that once this case is over french counsel for my client all for all proceedings here to get to the point where there can be no more proceedings what does that mean for means of a final decision from this court and either expiration of the application time for  think your honor we essentially what we oppose is the logic the defense have just exposed to you that despite that there is a decision that is being inforced i e our dismiss challenging parts of absolutely yes reconsider it mean why is that sense why should they have to comply with something that you're challenging well your honor because it's their challenge that because of our rule sixty motion in the first place if we look at the timing what happened was we were dismissed and we challenged the merits of the dismissal as it was our right to do so now while the appeal was pending for some reason i cannot comprehend except that defendants are trying to avoid jurisdiction's of any court they went up to a french judge and they said no no no this case should be heard in new york now plenty of defendants in this case are represented by different two different firms i'm not sure they talk to each other in fact that much but they've with they've actually held positions very differently actually tell to be new york or did they say they sang we don't want to be in two places at one time well your honor they  the transcript the translation of the transcripts or within that in the docket or understanding is that what they said in france was a sign of preference because it is not what they've tried they've tried to portray their defense in france as something automatic it's not the first time that french planets are before us court it's not the first time that they're dismissed on forming opinions i weber is probably the first time at least that's what my research is telling me that a defendant all such a contrary position back in the alternative jurisdiction and if they were not to have raised that position which is completely will form from them the case would have proceeded so in other words it is our perception that they were instrumental the order right now no i'm well they could have proceeded the case in france what happened your honor is the following after we got dismissed and if you succeeded on your challenge what would you have done pulled back to new york the intention here is what happened we asked the french court to recess to suspend the examination of this case because we had an appeal pending interestingly enough defendant that suspension to introduce the and a motion to have the case completely dismissed fully spins around which tells you that if in fact they would be willing to submit to the frustration they would have said look french court we agree to postpone we will win this appeal on the merits and when we will do so we'll come back and see you instead what they've done is we certainly please do not postpone but dismiss the case once and for all here and so they've all those different position at the same time thank you very much to all counsel