pointed out in our briefs in this case the underlying interplay of your action there is no jurisdiction to that case for that case to proceed and are you arguing there's no jurisdiction because it should have gone to arbitration  counter claims here so you argue what's in but st you didn't move to compel and you argued what seems to be the complete opposite of the district court and i might point out just to pile on that  a schedule in this particular instance which is what the settlement agreement fee grima cold for would in fact by every dispute that could have arisen i don't know how can you argue that now though i'm going to read a little bit more from your submission to the district court needle and i'm reading from record number seventy needle respectfully submit that the federal court is the proper forum to resolve all claims to the settlement  accordingly the binding mediation provision should not stay any of the proceedings in this case how can you come in now and argue there is no jurisdiction because it should have gone to arbitration when you took the exact opposite position in the district court would respectfully disagree that that would only be in the is susceptible to more than one meaning or if it's him big us i don't believe the time is it and thank you i do believe there's a big range to see what you're talking about again it should be the common a journal excepted meaning of the words that i don't believe the plain meaning of pursuant to in the settlement agreement was probably maybe i misunderstood your question your i don't think  subject matter jurisdiction was secured by the federal district court over this matter it was it's a contractual issue not a subject matter show it by your right you can't waive subject matter for submitting responses and paperwork that was upheld by a being reviewed by at least four other attorneys as being valid mr nida was sanctions for asking for an extension that was ultimately granted so i believe the sanctions are an issue at hand here they should be overturned i believe that he was sanctioned on the extension that was ultimately granted because he waited until the last minute and required the lawyers from the other side to accept fines on it when he had already had sixty days to respond and after a long history and lots of documentary it wasn't just for the fact that he asked for an granted you're on that doesn't mean that the district court couldn't have thought that after sixty days had gone by and yet another fourteen was necessary it wasn't sanctionable conduct the district judge could do both of those things in the interest of trying to keep the case moving along clients a statement explaining precisely what the settlement agreement would be the recommendation as to how they should act on it and it had to be approved by two thirds of the clients you're talking about part six yes of the settlement agreement and that never happened to the extent that they did mr needle did send a letter out that could be perhaps viewed as that in all of this he doesn't mention the amount of the attorney and so when the clients were present just signed they said they didn't know that provides for fees and i don't see how that could ever be putas pursuant to that this settlement agreement that doesn't talk about and so you're saying he loses on that he also tried previously before judge doesn't have anything else but they argue and and now he has a settlement agreement that has an integration clause that's specific that's the problem isn't he i think trying to bring in extrinsic evidence yes end mr needle had asked for a sixty day extension judge shader said i think actually forty two dollars days is a bit too much but he gave them the sixty days and he said as we played there a status call as usually did a status hearing so that we could all go over what the reply brief would be necessary that time was awarded for that what happened is on the th day mr needle motion for an extension and gave two reasons he said number one i still haven't filed by time sheets my reconstructed time she's which by the way the settlement was december fifty two thousand and thirteen and this is in what this is in two thousand and seventeen when this is happening he still hadn't filed it secondly he said you know that status hearing you had a couple months ago about this i wanted the transcript and i just found out that my opponents did not order the transcript and therefore i don't have why he would need a transcript of a of a status hearing i have no idea and was never explained these were this ingenuous reasons for an extension and judge shader caught it right away he knew we had already mentioned before that the mr needle had lied quote unquote for a reason for an honor and mr needle said no i've been working so hard on the motion and responded the motion bird the fault i have not read the opposition the two and a half pages as to why i shall not get an extension nobody in that will believe what mr kneale said surely not judge shater who had been on the bench for thirty five years and thirty years in practice before that i need not remind you what judge said which i think are words that are amazing he said in six and a half to kate's on in the last thirty plus on the bench i have never seen anybody so unrelenting unrelentingly obstructionists as you mr legal if you were  have the control of a courtroom so that it can administer justice maybe you run into this now and then i'm sure with pro se people but here's a case where the warrior says i've had thirty five years experience litigating all kinds of sophisticated complex commercial cases and look what he tried to do to actuate he tried to run out the clock and judge chaytor frankly that's what he did that good was done with the sanction for that was the purpose of objection by mr fayed of counsel and he had well st the court that he had said he that mr royce must issue the schedule and he says if the schedule is not issued then the court must must be held must hold if  if not then that then the court must must take over this case so i did the st request was for was it that i think you respectfully took a little bit out of context there was more and more to the quote than than that and it was if the schedule is not to be issued that the court must take over but the request all along was for a schedule to be issued and that would have ended any reasonable and real fear of double litigation anywhere and that would be the basis for one of the bases for the interplay or i don't know how a statement that needle respectfully submit so that the federal court is the proper forum to resolve all claims to the settlement fund accordingly the binding mediation provision should not stay any of the proceedings in this case could be taken to mean anything other than the k should stay here and not go to arbitration or it was part of a bigger quote your honor if that is true but given that that broad i very straightforward statement i don't know how could be i don't know why once again submit to your honor respectfully that if it's in the vein of if no schedule is going to be issued then that would have to happen but in this case a schedule should