fees in this case and ask the court reversed the district court's decision hearing on the case with instructions that the before order denying the motion for fees the threshold issue before this court is whether or not the district court just interested in the scope of this argument and when would there be a circumstance where there would be a judicial imprimatur under forty one a one eight to  judicial imprimatur but here there was no judicial relief provided to to the to focus at all throughout the entirety of the case and you're relying on the microsoft decision not for this part of the case but that's part of  correct or so if there's no final judgment how does this court house appellate jurisdiction but i don't really know if that's true your honor i'd have to look at that this isn't your main argument so it's not  if we were to agree with you with respect to the lanham act claim that you can't rely on the catalyst theory would we apply the same law in looking at whether there was a prevailing party under the utah utah supreme court decided that they indicated that they use a flexible rule that doesn't seem to focus on what type of rule what type of order you have a judgment you have yes i believe it or th this at least for my my my perspective is what role that claim had in the case and i don't think the district court either look to see what role that let me have let me make sure it seems to me we've change was not a stipulation for dismissal the voluntary chines was west virginia revoking the statute at issue thereby moving the case of the differences in west virginia in that is the critical fact and the critical law let me ask you this and we have cited we have this court has interpreted the canon in published decisions which oddly neither of you cited but in bell versus board of city commissioners i believe we have foreclosed your argument that you're making right now and said if court does not incorporate a private settlement into an award or does not sign or otherwise provide written approval of the settlement terms and does not retain jurisdiction to enforce performance of the obligations assumed by the settling party the settlement  you're going back you're going back to a hearing you're not addressing the dismiss there is no functional difference between a forty one a one a two dismissal and a forty one b to dismiss never is there judicial imprimatur in a simulated motion to dismiss with force on norton that i don't think you've answered the question the parties together stipulated in every forty one a one dismissal well i guess is it doesn't logically follow that that's your position if you keep wanting to go back to this rule twelve twelve see hearing i understand that we understand your argument but let's look at the stipulated dismissal and the court isn't around for that and in terms of why a good cop they for cases dismissal it doesn't really matter we don't know why the two of you got together and stipulated the dismissal maybe it had something to do with the twelve dismissed this with prejudice yes not didn't the stipulation just says is that the parties agreed under this rule to dismiss the case the court didn't have to approve it that's the ultimate  would defeat the reason the soul of all well that we have i think we understand your position maybe it would be helpful if we move to the utah truth in advertising claim would you agree that it is under prevailing party in because we're sitting in diversity and not under the whatever buchanan name yes ok so can you point me to some place in the record where the trial judge made findings on the specific factors that the utah supreme court has directed that the court should look at in determining who is the prevailing party under neath versus n and reminding me of those factors the language of the statute that forms the basis of for the attorneys fees the number of claims brought by the parties the importance of each of the claims relative to the entire litigation the amounts awarded on each claim and disclosures that when faced with supply me interrupt you if we were to find that you are not a prevailing party under the lanham act but that you were under the utah tr i'm sorry i'm somewhat dumbfounded that this record is truly remarkable and twenty two years of litigation i just want to just ask answer the question did you savannah in support of your attorney  information that breaks out work expended on the different clients know your name all right let me ask you one other thing about the attorney fees on the utah cloning how can you be a prevailing party when you dismiss without our stipulation that motion would have included that order would have dismissed our counter claims because it was not an independent counter clean it was soley dependent on the plane its claims the last theorem that when other laws again it's it's remarkable for me on this record with these courts find your counsel your time is up when you wrap up your your  argument you want to complete your thought yes your honor her case your overtime so puts let's wrap it up go ahead and complete your argument the district court found that this lawsuit was completely devoid of it nothing to quote prosecute or support its client i find it remarkable that the district court does not have the discretion to award attorneys fees those fine thank you thank you c that the with prejudice itself affected the legal relationship between the parties and if i understand the argument correctly that that would bring it with then a lant who that that nephew should do a little bit more towards a catalyst for you because the courts looking to see what that claim what role that claim played and who prevail will we have the same argument that when they dismissed their caravans against