privilege work product of the age and other matters that are i believe very relevant to this case but we were not able to or we could not and decided not to put in the briefs this case ultimately comes down in light of all the case law and of the cause of action t inherently by doing that there was an opportunity for the parties to conduct some amount of reasonable discovery this is paramount in this case one of the problems i think in the mind of the district court was and i think this was also a determination by the judge in the northern district with you having gates and forum shopping in filing the san francisco are correct correct and so that's certainly an issue that can be resolved on the pleadings without having to conduct discovery and you offered an argument as to why you had filed the case in the northern district because of the publication of local rules for what i'm and i'd like to explain that because there's a lot of allegations against michigan inherently like any litigation it you know it's not linear at a certain point you have different options different routes to take and i made the choices that i made in hindsight i should have done some things differently with respect to filing in the central district we did that there was an agreement with opposing counsel where they stipulated to giving us such six to seven months to follow emotional classification perhaps was negligence of me not to put that in the stipulation we put that in the statement when the order came from judge real it didn't address it suddenly the defendants said no we're going back on our ward  take that order from the district court we just file and you actually said was absolutely we thought about that what that negates is the fact that there's the ninety day rule which i personally say would be impossible on a case of this reject every single question that hall they wouldn't even look at the recordings it was automatic and the should be pretty simple the person that i've talked to the persons that i've talked to this is the delicacy of the situation when they said don't present facts i have to contact his people i have to win the trust i partnership with intersections exclusively work with banks which already have the credit card number and financial institution numbers came up looked at the regulations pertaining to banking laws privacy telemarketing reverse engineer a scheme by which their  ins conspicuous as possible when calling people they would be confused about what they're signing up on they would get all the details which you plead that would support those allegations who what when where and how how compliance of making sure that this telemarketing sales year which you're applying to could you please specifics about that this policy was actually implemented on a particular day in a sit down the matter how many policies there are unless those policies are actually applied correct there can be no damage to anyone unless those policies are actually implemented and i think that what's missing from the and where would be bank of america customers would be contacted like the various times during the hospital it would be provided information about this this accidental general well i mean there's a repeated history of them being confused signing up the majority of all based upon her experience and her department's experience they were not they were not aware what they were signing up for many of these things were supposed to be reviewed they were not reviewed they had automatic policy for a certain chariot there were autumn if the person had to call three different times if they called twice they just would not even look at the audio recording to see if it was a valid claim or not and you know when you apply that to a situation with some was working i'm sure what  told me i mean i think i hear a lot of conclusions but i i don't hear a lot of admissible evidence that that witness would be able to testify to well i mean i mean what was this person's position was this a person who actually made how can i conclude that joe's real abused his discretion in finding that any further amendment would be futile the allegations what this person would say is that they were not complying with the laws required so that this case right is from a rather unusual procedural circumstance we have two district courts that have ruled consistently and in fact identically on the controlling issues complete was brought in this case in a order it it raises the same allegations it was the first and there was white one which does so tell me the case that i can look to to find the principle that comedy can be applied either when the parties differ or case coming up there are any number of them including the first company we have a situation where the case was brought in the northern district california as we all know the judge there after receipt well the parties plaintiff after we notified the northern district that the ninth circuit had an appeal involving substantially similar complaint before it came to and i second voluntarily dismissed the white suit appeal in doing so they deprived us of the opportunity to deploy the first to file rule in the northern district they either to reconsider the case all over again to apply principles of sharia slices and give deference to his own prior ruling or in this instance to apply principles of comedy under the circumstances considered held on similar grounds that there's simply futility of amendment here because there's nothing they can add factually the court talk about the time and place to disclose those facts the time and place to disclose any additional opposing counsel about what it was that he would say given the opportunity yes but but that discussion about what would go into an amended complaint is supposed to be brought before the district court before immediately after  presented before in this case until their reply brief when it's impermissible is this notion that people not these plaintiffs but that people generally had to call intersections three times in order to cancel the complaint refutes that for amendment on top of another opportunity for him and on top of another one he had a complaint in the amended previously this court shivery you that complained it did not because plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed it now they filed another seattle versus los angeles but i know under a local rules in western washington that the rules require that a proposed amended complaint be law in response to a challenge to the motion