please the court the key issue presented in this employment based fraud case is whether the repeated numerous statements made by mr hardy mr prophet about lobbying on behalf of the plaintiff so that he could get his stock options and that they would do everything they could so that he would get them and that a decision was coming out next month were false representations made knowing that they were false at the time or misleading or with a reckless disregard as to whether they were misleading when the evidence is that mr wells had in early to consider plaintiff's request and in fact it was too hypothetical to consider at that time mr plaintiff's i'm sorry mr pro stated that he then told both mr hardy and mr claim to plaintiffs of that fact but the evidence is he did not plaintiff denies having one been informed that mr wilson thought it was too early to consider his request at any time detriment put his life on hold for that year as he was waiting to get an answer that was promised repeatedly in the immediate future that he put his life on hold and gave up at least t to get this information and that his testimony in his inner auditory responses that are one fifty one are was that it was to his detriment that this was a chance of a lifetime to get into an adult dealership but instead in reliance upon the misrepresentations by both mr hardy and mr prophet thirty four go those opportunities and in his words put his life on  hold again come back to the time suppose he had known all along they were kind of make the decision until the end of the year really and change his situation any he can leave right away but he surely forgoes the options he does so focusing again on  misrepresentations and right and you emphasized a timing of decision one not the fact of decision not whether or not he would be his actions of the grant that are recognized or vested but whether the decision was going to be made next month and it's not quite so clear to me that there's a connection between his reliance upon or his hope that he's going to get the options vested in the timing of the decision if they had told him flat out as as they allege they did but i understand at this point we're examining your misrepresentation regarding the timing the evidence is that he did forego the opportunity there isn't a statement because of the misrepresentations regarding both time in general and the efforts ok there is no or there is no concrete statement in the record that had i known they would make the decision in november rather than next month i would not have stated it is not that concrete but at this stage  reasonable not necessarily the only reasonable but a reasonable inference of his repeated months after months of going to them trying to get the information is that this is important to him this is a factor in his decision making and this goes to that point the question isn't whether it is safe but for determinative factor the question is whether a reasonable person in plaintiff's position would have forego say as a matter of law that a person who was faced with an opportunity to get a car dealership versus a stock option of over valued at over three hundred thousand dollars would not have been impacted by the representations that they were doing everything they could to get him those three hundred thousand dollars worth of stock options clearly the there is an intent to mislead him sort of moving to another element there is an intent to mislead plaintiffs when fein know it's too early to consider their request and they continue to say we're working on it you know you mentioned they've got a chance to have a car dealership i understand the magistrate judge who ruled that there were some big discussions with this fellow about maybe he could invest in a car dealership it was nothing really than the testimony itself that there was a serious discussions that more than one discussion and that he declined that opportunity they had to have gotten to to a certain stage of seriousness for him to decline the that involve john skinner among others the end that he declined the offer it take gotten to a point where it was concrete enough how much was he supposed signing it how much was he supposed to invest i does not in the record know what the offer was the offer was to to eventually buy into the partnership of a car dealership in that third and that those are rare opportunities in quality chance of a lifetime a chance of a lifetime an inference of buying into a car dealership as a partner any chance of a lifetime is not some vague gosh casual i wish that maybe might have happened it's a it's a opportunity  concrete opportunity it's not some vague and more first possibility it's discussed it's discussed with the owner it's presented to him as an opportunity and he declined it unfortunately out of time i think case the plaintiff and made known to them the fund and the sum factor in that transaction was important to the point that in determining whether to enter into the transaction or not just briefly a couple examples of that encourage him to save it and they surely must understand stock options were much bigger lower and so any discussion with him about the likelihood of having those options fast could be expected to influence the decision whether or not to stay or consider other alternatives and whether they knew the other alternatives not many employers know of their employees considering alternatives but it's not hard to figure out that people look out for their own interests and in a situation where you know the company is being sold you especially think attention to what else is out there for you  not that the ak actually clarifies he wasn't told and you've got a good point on this he wasn't told stick with us you'll be taken care of we know we can control this that was made he understood that the people he was talking to latency according to the evidence you submit was clearly left with the impression that these people are working hard to accomplish that result and we're trying to look out for him even though they didn't have the power and the evidence also suggest the reality was very different that they were not pushing for that result well could have been influenced by that was it reasonable reliance and i think it's an arguable question doesn't know that it's the fact that the company didn't know that he was considering alternatives or excuses it from some responsibility here or there you  surely have to understand that when a business is being sold in the employee knows that the employees got to think out loud for himself gee what's in it for me what are my alternatives what happens if this doesn't work out for your owner mr fox had every opportunity  the offer from john skinner for the season others i believe that i would be better off to get this cock options and that their value would make it that much easier to invest in another job opportunity at some point in the future so it's it's not a direct statement as to i state here because of but it is clearly the inference from that is just that he did rely on the misrepresentations in order to  it's i think he did i think there's isn't evidence as to what his interest would cost i think there was evidence that he did that his interest was discussed what percentage i don't believe is in the record but that they had gotten to that level i believe that level of detail was in the record and i agree that the fact that they don't know that i'm giving the topper to these he