you your honor in this case raises extremely important issues under massachusetts federal law although the use of arbitration clauses have become widespread over the past decade no hell a court has yet the stark situation that is before you today where a company is attempting to use its arbitration clause to vent an injunction which is necessary to and supportive of to obtain if they were properly classified as employees under massachusetts law and you are in saying you can't even address this court because of an arbitration agreement which would not allow the drivers to the remedy of plaintiff here is in the nature of public injunctive relief and the massachusetts attorney general's office has now agreed the plaintiffs do the unusual step of submitting an amicus brief even at the district court level that massachusetts law would like california have the argument that the good drivers are exempt from the federal arbitration act under the transportation chain and this court's decision in richmond is directly on point in controlling and which this couldn't even go out when it were held not to be engaged in interstate commerce here there are no such limit and there is the court actually pointed out that there were no there was no co op aeration between the taxi companies and the courts that have held that it needs ghoshal developments such as the being in court in the rd circuit remanded the case for discovery although it's still not completely clear what standard would apply there here i really don't  if the issue is going to be how much is their transportation to or from the airport that could be a factual development but i don't really think that's going to be a dispute among the parties that that about ten percent of its rides in massachusetts are to or when a passenger gets off an airplane at logan airport they're not done with their journey they're not done with their journey so they got to their home or their hotel room and so being transported by and driver is hard as that plaintiffs could have obtained the injunction arbitration so it's not just that the court proceedings would be necessary only to preserve the status quo for arbitration and the arbitrator can then decide whether to enter the injunction here bruce trying to get out of ever having anyone a court or an arbitrator ever be able to decide whether an injunction is warranted here and the u s supreme court or the th circuit have ever allowed such a thing to happen   the status quo i think we mention in our papers cases that have noted that in joining a company from violating the law is the proper use of an injunction i mean the people versus  shows that where a superior court in california recently entered such an injunction as did the court in the name the people vs naipaul barricade as well notwithstanding the fact that we were there  issue and the superior court nevertheless said that it needed to decide the injunction as this court should as well and and again so before you before you run out of time altogether let me ask you this it's not entirely clear to me form of course i recognize that they'll be delayed because of the pandemic situation but what's your view on certifying this question to the massachusetts supreme court well i think this is an extremely important case that should be labor protections the wage protections that were being denied based on the classification scheme impacts the public as well as the drivers because of the burden on top payers and public assistance burdens on the state as has ever how reclassification and waged in our claims are public injunctive relief so that's just not public injunction and courts in california unanimously reject that notion finally the district court was correct to deny plaintiff's motion for a lemon area injunction pending arbitration because the mandatory injunction that they thought would bend rather than preserve the status quo and it would not ever cross state lines and that is the factual finding and it was under the event and also the evidence is undisputed that there's no nothing to support it all a finding that drivers are completing the last leg of an there is no evidence in the record your honor answer that best not to i'm not sure where lance council is getting that but there was no evidence in the wreckage that it's just not true and here is judge chan found only ten percent of trips and most originated cited some links and some materials i think in a footnote in their brief but that the evidence in the record shows that i had backed up ten percent against that's not the class of workers of ten percent of a class drive the rents are of course we the yes your honor and the type of partnerships that have mattered as a legal matter going back to the yellow cab case and not it is where the interesting trip is part of cool ordinated change so if for example had an arrangement whereby over was responsible for the interstate travel is or was coordinating it where and again airport trips we don't know but there interstate trips in california for example we go from san francisco valet all the time people go to the airport just to just to work or do something else but we're just going back to the the coordinated chain of interstate commerce there's nothing here like in the yellow cab case in this point in bright was very clear that the kinds of trips that the supreme court said were in interstate commerce in the yellow cab these were those that were purchased in advance as part of that interstate travel and there's nothing like that here a working car and all that but you know the bigger the group of drivers who signed on to the ad the better it is or who are its business model if there is a public injunction wouldn't that benefit the members of the general public in a way that the typical wage in our case no your honor in fact no court has agreed with the plaintiff argument on that point this is a private federal court and they have all agreed that this is not public injunctive relief judge job read about giving the massachusetts high court the opportunity to pass on this question your honor i don't think that would be the right approach because again this is not public injunctive relief so just as a preliminary matter every court has agreed it's not public injunctive relief and so even if massachusetts were to recognize the rotten rule from california which has been on the books for twenty years and is a very specific creature of california law no court in massachusetts or anywhere else in the country and ever invented at doctoring that but but here it just wouldn't matter because this is fundamentally private individual basis this court how the class waiver in hoover's arbitration agreement in the o'connor case by an individual driver can be this relief in arbitration also under the jambs will drive injunctive relief and if they need me showing but they would be going through that on an individual basis but here what they are attempting to do is represent tens of thousands of absent persons so it would be plaintiff reference again or are not record evidence so for all of those reasons the court should erm the district court decision and i'm happy to answer any additional questions that the court my happens i see that my company was involved in all of that so like me at all it doesn't matter here that i wasn't involved in that but on the issue about partnering with the airlines i don't think there's really going to be any dispute over has been doing that if the that in its brief is that ten percent of the ride by tube or drivers in massachusetts go to an airport i was met almost all over drivers in massachusetts and probably taken passengers the airport at some time or another  and then finally on the issue of the public injunctive relief i noted that in the clip in the clip for a case the court of appeals didn't see seeking over time and being a matter of a public good but here transmitted by other drivers who are out on the roads rather than staying home when their nd getting paid so that they can stay home and that would protect those who are drivers as members of the public as well as themselves so that they can get the benefit of protect the public of course a driver being able to individually obtain injunctive relief does not address the public issue here one person can get sick pay and stay home the public interest as the attorney general has chimed in in this case is that all over drivers should have the benefit of the state law and that will protect the public as a whole and it's important that this be addressed somewhere if it can't be brought to arbitration has to be addressed in court