companion they arrived at the theater approximately twenty minutes prior to the screening in our theater we have two areas wheelchair seating we have an area with two wheelchair spots in one location  sitting in the companion seat and explained to him look there are patrons that need these seats will you please move to another seat he made her may not have offered him a pass to another movie our policy includes offering the house to encourage early with his son to view that movie and he was not going to move at that point we the management had discussions with the plaintiff's point it's we're obviously upset about this we offered them passes to see that movie which was then screening another other auditoriums in the same theater were to come back and see another movie they asked for the phone numbers for our district manager we gave them to them and they so if you just kept them available left are very hard until ten minutes before then they could be used by other people so it's not that you've done everything you could do it wouldn't be very hard to deal with this problem well at some point that we run into the problem of determining who is a companion how many companions one companion per wheelchair that's so i want what's the heart of what's hard about determining who's a companion the man in a wheelchair comes in with his wife if you have a problem determining if a companion you know what what about three children though they want to be children aren't companions and i guess this is exactly the sort of guidance we need or do we have from the court simply tells us to ensure that these spaces are armed not used by non companions we need to understand what that means we need to understand what sort of questions we have to ask for example a situation that we're concerned about is an individual to walk or comes into a movie theater he stores got walker in the wheelchair space and uses the adjoining companion seat to sit and watch the movie we now have an individual who comes in and who wants with a companion in a wheelchair who wants to use that contingency and says we are you please ask this individual to walk or to move the companion seat which is the person who's supposed to be using that is reserved for my companion under that circumstance under the court's order i believe we have the obligation to go to the individual the walker and tell him you must move because you are not a companion here's an individual that disability who is a companion nevertheless he is a can he is an individual disability who would like to transfer from his walker to a chair from his wheelchair to a chair and that that's a dynamic that that we are having a hard time addressing here well you know the law doesn't always provide an answer to every possible contingency it requires some reason on the part of people when you can get a statute that tells you what's criminal it doesn't spell out the answer to every single possible question so i suppose you would say well we don't know whether we'd be committing a crime because here i'll give you a hypothetical where something might happen the law doesn't is not a code with you know every possible basic arise i understand that and your point your your hypothetical is very well taken  available for individuals with disabilities and their companions it doesn't define how many companions it doesn't apply in the scope of insured based against our policy presumably the court entered this order because the court found that our current policy was not in compliance to under your policy whether it's somebody had invited somebody who was drunk you know someone who took his clothes off you know what you would do normally i would think you could put a rope across the answers here so like this argument is making me think of that is what is really going on why is it so difficult to use common sense to comply with this law some ulterior motive beyond us trying to seek more clarification it's truly as if you have to spread it across the number of theaters screens we have two thousand screens across the nation the number of people who come through the fact that at some point we may encounter the concerns with that representation first of all it was addressed in the lower court in the district court dealt with the uncontroverted testimony is that they now go forty five to sixty minutes early to every movie theater to avoid this very problem and so they have had their lives impacted on this they are suffering from present and ongoing circumstances and they take remarkable measures to avoid the same problem again and so this day the court called a disingenuous to say it hasn't happened again because now they're going an hour early to avoid the very problem so that's not entirely fair second of all with respect to the issue of movements the standard for mootness is a very high standard in the court cited it and i quote from friends of the earth hundred thirty seats in this theater there's only four that can be used by wheelchair users and their companions they shouldn't have to compete with the public at large for those very few spaces that they can use  stipulated early in the case that there's a little dimensions of the theater met the guidelines so that was never an issue was never an issue about whether or not it was constructed properly it was always about the policies and procedures than required by providing the companion seat for each wheelchair worker only obligated to provide a companion seat for every other with respect to the actual injunction that was issued throughout the oral argument the transcripts and even during a policeman every conversation that took place on the phone there's been a series of questions problems that have been raised by the defendant and the court has dealt with each one and explained and we've worked through a number of them but the new ones keep arising and there is no way that any injunction issued by the court could as rest every possible scenario because there always be new ones that people can come up with and that's why i think it's appropriate for the district court to clearly identify what companion and they've taken that they don't know other wheelchair users the pain the shoals of has a greater claim to it this is simply a matter of providing priority used between let your use of their companions and non wheelchair users and their companions to those wheelchair user companion this very simple solving one it will solve the problem in this case and in any other case like this if there are some extremely new circumstances that arise that will be dealt with in another case and we can deal with everything in this case but in who's not in this properly or not behaving properly there has to do something and someone talks throughout the movie they're going to have to move the person or if he smokes or does anything and there's no doubt that anyone who is disruptive who doesn't follow the rules and procedures that down by the managers that they can be effective and properly so and there's a hope that in fact the district court came up a list of those things talked about smoking last talked about just like that someone doesn't pay for a ticket and goes in there for six dollar what happened there then the single instance of discrimination but of course this is an eighty eight case where the only relief vailable injunctive relief and what's a question here is whether or not our policy complies with the a d f a and the reason we're here is because this users in whatever manner they reasonably request amsi will ask guests seated near wheelchair it's sure spaces to move to allow companions of individuals in wheelchairs to sit near wheelchair spaces in most cases and so you will offer the guests sitting in companion first place instead of allowing them to sit there that's one thing you can go very easy roping off until ten minutes before it has i don't understand way of problem with this  very sensitive the area which is wheelchair users we're very concerned there is lots of litigation going on the location of wheelchair spaces and when it comes to potential victims and disabled individuals from the companions he's transferred from a wheelchair space he's left his wheelchair in the wheelchair space and transferred to the fixed seat that scenario is what really troubles us and what do you get all the rest coverage is that it's not a real problem what really bothers you is what do you do if a disabled sitting in it that's right so it wouldn't be available for the next will surely that's right so the person was complaining that he can't put his companion in that seat that you're worried about would never place himself anyway because address that one other point of difference between wheelchair area and the number of companion spaces the distinction is in the a diagram lation the americans with disability act regulations section four point thirty three point