covers two issues whether the case should have been dismissed and they have arbitration and whether this case should be remanded the state courts of start with the first one i think it's important to step back from the weeds of this case and look at exactly what they're trying to enforce here what the chevrons trying to force it's not a creation provision in a confidentiality agreement that has zero to do this case nothing the terms of this contract do not have to be referred to in any way in the  the case originally there are a lot of issues new things that just didn't occur to me you know we had asked a question about jurisdiction if and i know you disagree that the convention applies but if the convention applies do you agree with counsel opposite that argued that it isn't necessary the issue of the citizenship per se of the of pertaining to you because it involves it has a significant foreign interaction because the oil fields or circular in the convention application i realize that but you would raise this issue remained to address the m the citizenship of britannia you but if that was on the diversity ground that's correct your honor i think i think it applies to the othe argument as to whether for example this agreement was induced by fraud or this agreement that was supported by consideration or forget was signed at all in the first place and i think those issues would be subject submittable very delicate in the arbitrator but the issue of whether of how to interpret this contract and whether it applies to the claims that we've raised in this case i don't think are clearly in months they believe some of the arbitrator under either the rules or this language of this very contract isn't that the quintessential delegation of conclude exactly what you said look this agreement we can throw it in the trash and you've still got your lawsuit and therefore it isn't arbiter ball and send it back i mean that could happen people always fight arbitration assuming they're going to lose but you could actually win concerning jurisdiction meaning the jurisdiction of the arbitrator to hear the arbitration including the existence or validity and the existence or validity of the arbitration vision agreement but it doesn't say but and limited to it's just including so that's an example of what's included but it seems broader than that why wouldn't it encompass the question of whether this contract matters to the dispute i think your honor it could be construed in that way but not clearly an unmistakeable and so as it would have to be in gist of it is simply that there has to be a clear and unmistakable delegation of this issue and i just don't think it appears in this language moving beyond that the argument concerns here whether  first off whether england and wales law applies to the interpretation of this provision i'd point out that all the fifth circuit cases cited by the apple e's dealing with whether a general choice of law clause governs the in this case with a garbage ability i think that that she had there was no opinion issued with this order instead that the court ordered that this case that the casing to be sent to arbitration and that the arbitrator would have the power to here is remand the case for termination of that however i think it's a question of law and it was something that was argued by both parties i think this court could reverse on the basis of these cases without outside the scope of the arbitration agreement the arbitration agreement itself is governed by english law and english law doesn't have quite the same presumption as lisa doesn't appear to have as strong of a presumption in favor of arbiter ability as american law does that all unrelated case is between a parting with bees a big arbitration merely that issues of existence or when to be of a contract for example would be submitted to an arbitrator the same way it would be here for example if i say that a contract is induced by please the court this case begins and ends with the delegation clause and i'll focus principally on that although of course won't answer any questions the court has about any of the other issues in its twenty sixteen cases and rayna this court held quote if there is a delegation clause the motion to compel arbitration should be granted in almost all cases judge rosenthal faithfully follow that precedent here and dismissed the case and this court should  this case and judge haynes correctly points out that the first clause in the delegation clause the arbitrator shall have authority to rule on objections concerning jurisdiction is clear and unmistakable delegation to the arbitra to determine issues of the scope of the agreement indeed as judge james correctly pointed out that is the quintessential question that is delegated to the arbitrator the delegation clause then goes on and uses it including phrase and it says including questions of the validity or existence of the agreement those are more extreme questions those are often questions that courts deal with but the other delegation clause here used to build the suspenders approach to be clear that even those extreme cases would be  arbitrator let me ask you a hypothetical let's say i go to a b c bank and open a checking account and i sign an agreement identical to this in terms of the arbitration costs and then a year or two later i close my checking account and that's the end of that and lot like this court's decision in the regions case and this court held that there is a very very narrow exception to the delegation clause and because that sounds a lot like it i would say that you would have a strong argument to avoid to a confidentiality agreement that was a prerequisite to participating in the bidding process and then accepting the bid procedures that were the prerequisite to moving to the next stage of the bidding process then they bring a lawsuit claiming that the bidding happened to be at the bank for some other reason and this checking account thing is long since gone that's correct and it's not only wholly unrelated to decide this case whichever tribe you know decides this case is going to have to look at clauses in the confidentiality agreement in the bid procedures which you can see excerpted on page seven of our brief where they provide probably most on point chevron raise their unilateral right at any time and its sole discretion to negotiate with one or more parties and to enter into an agreement relating to the assignment of the interest with one or all parties that's directly on point for the claims that pertain is raising here they say chevron should have accepted our bit because it was the highest bi chevron unfairly negotiated with other parties and quit negotiating with us they say it has a sufficient sufficient facial connection that we don't have to resort to some extreme thing and completely disconnected thing and decide that case because that's not the case that's right that's right i think the court in the regions case that whole there is a very narrow exception for claims that are completely unrelated and there's no plausible argument that the cases are bad for bill but in later cases the court made very clear that's an extremely narrow exception and the language i quoted from the cue ball and rayna cases the motion to compel arbitration should be granted in quote almost all cases and the motion to compel should granted if the argument that the dispute falls within the scope of the agreement is not quote holy ground us we think we win on the merits obviously and we've laid that out at great length here it's frankly not a close question that this is not wholly groundless or that there aren't plausible arguments on our side particularly when to prevail the tribunals are going to have to construe the very arbitration agreements that pertain assign moving  about the waiver point should we even get to this or should we just say you know what you did brief the main issue you're out think that's the most straightforward way i think that's what this court's precedent suggests your honor i think there's a suggestion that it's an issue of law there was no prejudice we never had an opportunity to address the arguments that they made in the reply brief until today and of course we're happy to do that and we think and i'm going to do that in the next few minutes we have we have conflicting pressures on that or just a greater weight of and so it can be raised in the in the reply i'm not sure those handle decisions are reconcilable became our cases that support our taking cognitions of it maybe we have some kind of discretion to do that in cases that are directly on point there cited at page twenty of our brief the oracle case from the ninth circuit the schneider case from the second circuit and the chevron v effort or case from the d c circuit particularly those first to deal with this very scenario where the question was one of scope whether certain claims worth in the scope of the arbitration agreement and the court in the courts in those cases held at the incorporation of the instance our rules gave arbitrator questions of scope as well so not only has no court accepted the argument that pretty any of us making to parse through the scope language but several courts have ruled directly in our favor on that point in fact i think the court be creating a circuit split go against those circuits on that point mr humphrey referenced the republic of iraq case an unpublished second circuit case or sui cited a published second circuit case that was directly on point that held that questions of scope are delegated to the arbitrator by use of travels the republic of iraq case was really a very unique scenario in that case no signatory sought arbitration and you had a true stranger to the contract the republic are iraq coming in and trying to claim third party beneficiary status and the court held in that context that very limited context the arbitrator did not have the authority to address the iraqi question of arbiter ability which anyone today questioning the snap removal argument we don't think there's any way this court reaches you in arguing one way or another on that we well i can base that my answer on is the briefing and at the very end of both parties briefs i think both parties recognize that if the court gets all the way past the waiver the delegation clause and we're kind of done is interesting really as this is never a question isn't as much as i think my two colleagues would be amazing in addressing it you're saying we don't need to i'm saying you don't need to certainly the court can give alternate ground at least as far as the arguably way fishy no i think i think i have now covered that the only case even arguably sided on their side on the delegation cause of the republic of iraq case unpublish distinguishes two published cases from the second circuit on the grounds that no signatory in that case sought arbitration i would expand a little bit on the question of mr muskerry and mr idea for a moment and that's simply to point out agents of the signatory and that principle the best case we cite on it is in re merrill lynch and that runs through a lot of the federal citations as well to be hard to find a more well established principle of law and if this court does somehow reach an english law question english law like life recognizes that common sense principle then one thousand nine hundred six arbitration act states that a party includes a person who is claiming under or through a signatory and that is very much like mr machinery mr out the are doing here they've been sued for actions that they allegedly took in the scope and course of their employment in their agency they have been intimately involved in the proceedings here these are completely it's not like my hypo the bank or i just happen to be the bank for some of the reason fault having nothing to do with a checking account closed years before this is integral e tied up in the whole thing you signed a confidentiality in order to is begin the big process you do the b process then you say the bid process isn't fair why isn't that at least related enough that we sent it to the arbitrator to decide how related is it well with regard to the relationship i've never i'm not sure of any cases that show that they call the relationship between the call the contract the claims would make them related enough usually has to be some nexus between the fact the operative facts of the two of any contract claim of the contract itself in the towards sit a look try to watch the docket see when they get sued and then apparently congress intended that those people be allowed to move cases and circumvention of the form defendant rule where as regular joe doesn't have that resource