either sixteen a one who were sixteen and eighty three in the arbitrator's decision is a final word of arbitration or conversely a final decision pertaining to an arbitration for purposes of sixteen game three aside from its title and titles of course are not always controlling but the title is final award of arbitration the only issue submitted to arbitration wide is whether or not the dispute should be pardon me i just want to circuit recognise this as a kind of a fifth ground under section ten in a in two thousand and six in the mccarthy case since the supreme court has handed down whole street and install will sit in the supreme court has made clear that syntax that is the fundamental cornerstone of all contract interpretation and here in order to get it to carry fergus then you have to first find that it's the choice of law provision applies to the arbitration provision which is contrary to the parties intended and sent out in the contract and that the arbitrator specifically said this is not in terms of the parties casey jumped over that whole step but really every breach of contract case of course is going to start with looking at the intent of the parties but first paragraph saying this is not in terms of the parties case he never explains in his decision why it's not in time to the parties case you know it because again we must all acknowledge that we're looking at a contract where we started with the intent of the and kind of says well it's it's tempting to go that way but again this is not in terms of the party's case thank you thank you final judgment and so we think that for purposes of analyzing the interplay of those rules to do so i get midstream here happy to concede for jurisdictional purposes not that you do  act i think is intended by its structure to a certain category of cases to have a fast track record heels and well one of the reasons i think it doesn't make sense to me is that the were lost on a motion to dismiss and now almost proceed to the merits it is far from bringing this case to a conclusion it we can't do hypothetical jurisdiction i don't think we need to look at hypothetical jurisdiction because you do have jurisdiction under the federal arbitration act for b i didn't think about this is i was preparing for the argument because it is an interesting interplay we as we've set out in our briefs and discussed today maintain strenuously that we have a right to an automatic interlocutory appeal under two alternate provisions of the federal arbitration act that said though if  reason i had had any doubt about that we would have still filed a notice of appeal as we did invoking this court's jurisdiction under the f a a because we really could not have waited the time it would have taken to brief and argue and receive a decision on a rule fifty four b finding which is discretionary with the district court would undoubtedly or a should say at least presumably have consumed the thirty time window from the case law that if you have a little interlocutory appeal under the federal arbitration act and not timely exercise that appeal you forfeited that issue for a mere its review as you were just guessing with me opposing counsel with respect to this decision on the arbiter ability of the claims can later be decided at the end of the day following litigation in the district court we could never ever have taken a chance that we would again at the end of the litigation it's a final decision because it finally decides the issue of whether or not this controversy will be arbitrated and this again brings us back to the purpose of the federal courts and the parties from wasting resources and i believe it's the first source case of th