alleges claims very distorted claims that guest defendants and including including officers and agents and so forth it's worded i would know worded it this way but it's clearly against all the don't qualify for arbitration the rd party doctrine and others that do so your are all for see that one of our position is that all the clients are subject to arbitration and i think this morning's house would agree that the starting point for the agreement in several circumstances so they are free now according to procedure hers the st is where the relationship between the signatory and non signatory is sufficiently close that only by permitting the non signatory to  close but they should be able to compel arbitration out of your grievance and other important point point to address what you're i was asking about is that this mortgage never claimed it never disputed in the district court that all of the claims she raised in statements prior to the execution of the contracts however he did organise the founder and managing member of traipse he was acting on behalf of the troops at all times they knowledge that he interacted with them as the founder and manager of tricks your arse exactly correct that is virtually identical to the situation here where even though some of the allegations will predate the employment agreement there is no dispute and this organ cannot re disclose that sarah in even though they didn't use those magic words at every single place in the united complied there is no other capacity and wish mr bear on this group and we're act now if you want to go back briefly officer of pro net has the same rights as your honour's the fact that blanchard was an officer of crow net was sufficient and i'm sorry supreme courts to enable them to compel only be fulfilled by the future conduct of its corporate officers employees and agents the same is true fear for your guest does not act except through its individual officers and  pretty pretty much a crucial part of the pre contract allegations as it is almost as described in the briefs so that tort claim does not pleaded in the way you in the wa poor things i just think you everybody it is cases ignored the complaint and you have not you will not entirely fairly summarize the design at least as i read it but i have read the so going straight to the issue your honor that you raised we didn't think about that i don't know how all of the lawyers involved in this case missed something that you would benefit by at st blush as it relates to the petition and what i guess what i would say about that judge is as it relates to the procedural posture that we're in now in the appeal that were before the court today on we are not the movement we responded to the issues that they addressed and so judge well judge i guess that depends on how you order that because the the because just the way i said it this is the alaska as a last line an opinion that otherwise affirms and a nd or rd appeal i'm not sure i've ever been in this situation before these are not issues that were breached so i haven't thought about them carefully what i thought about carefully is the report has been in the way be issues have been framed that are currently before this court all rest upon this court applying cd partners in order to reach the conclusion that my clients are going to  yes but i'm not going to tell you that there is such a scenario because i think the honest review of the not only the pleadings but the facts in this case is that brooklyn and f l the conversations that they had the lead to both the fraudulent misrepresentation and also the also the omission i think counsel said earlier he doesn't know any way they could have acted in any capacity to confirm that all the allegations against the individual defendants relate to the agency relationship between those individuals in the company is that correct and i'm starting on this probably rd time you've been defendants are seeking to enforce an arbitration agreement that in the paragraph twenty of the arbitration agreement makes no mention of anyone other than the corporate defendant and then it goes on to state the agreement contains a binding arbitration provision which may be enforced by the parties and that doesn't sync with what this court has said in cd partners because this court explicit we recognized in cd partners in page eight point eight that in that case the arbitration agreement specifically included franchise o directors agents officers any of those and the decision in city partners versus good will is premised upon the fact that those folks were indeed included and so why did tended to start out today is at the time that the the fraud occurred in this case my client had never seen this arbitration agreement my cousin what's i in fact in this case the distinction between a non signatory and someone not included in the contract is you can be included in the language and in every release that i've ever signed which is where the issues would come to be releasing the corporate entity and the directors officers agents in the language and in the body of the arbitration agreement they could have included directors agents officers or a and only one person would have sucked up on a signatory to me means that they didn't sign the agreement but if they are specifically referenced and mentioned in the agreement whether or not zero they're signatory in the issue but it gentlemen i'll just be honest with you until his honor brought this up at the outset and said what were you all looking at if you weren't looking at the st amended petition intertwines parties i don't know what we were looking at judge i guess we all should have looked at it closer i just i find myself here in the court of appeals because they are attempting to compel my clients to arbitrate citing cd partners where i don't believe it applies because there is no language mentioning those folks and and that's what judge boo seized upon as well basically he seized upon the fact that they drafted this contract if they intended to include agents to officers directors and employees as individuals that was their heard our whether it's arbitration or otherwise i have not looked at that your honor candidly in focusing on what i was going to say to the court today i was mostly interested in pointing out the distinction of city partners and pointing out to the court that they drafted this arbitration agreement and they failed to include feral and brooklyn and and so that it as they didn't see the partners they did not include it's in the in the appendix at pages forty four to forty six the court can take a look at the actual  but i don't think that's true judge i think if they would have included within the body of the contract that the contract intended to apply to and cover directors agents and officers only one person is going to sign the agreement any time you sign any contract with a corporation and the the contract is said to release or in this case compel arbitration as it relates to agents so i mean that it is their burden judge in these cases as the th circuit has looked at this issue there's always been the issue of we're going to apply missouri contract law and these him quiet make cases the best case that we cited was our case we handled that in the st instance the district court has to decide if there's a pining contract between the parties and under missouri law if you don't include these individuals they're not covered by the agreement and they didn't include a they they talk about the corporation but their own language says this agreement contains a binding arbitration agreement which may be enforced by the parties period and in sub par graph twenty they don't include agents officers and directors and in c v partners and in the other cases that we've looked at  couldn't tell in torben whether or not that was language in that arbitration agreement that specifically included agents officers and directors but but they are asking you to expand on c v partners if the court doesn't have any other questions i really don't have anything other than that to say i would say this this whole issue in the brief is c t partners a one step test or a two step test i don't know if the court's going to address that or not the defendants seem to indicate that all they have to do is indicate that there's a sufficiently close relationship between the parties and we think steps used to show that the underlying contract would be a bit straighter and it i don't know my understanding of this aerated would not include that we've already been sent off to arbitration and we're going to arbitrate the missouri human rights i have nothing further unless court has other questions of me very good thank you thank you judge and judge which i'd have thought about your question before i came before the court today