investigation and report investigation to law enforcement and then kill to do so that's where our complaint picks up and we feel like th stolen goods is different from investigation for last it's my right so far did you draw the distinction between those you know you're right in the context i  that you've got me to the part where everything i can ask the question i'm really interested in and that is once it was a cleese situation even if they deferred  to mr brock's doing some investigation if there's if there's fault here why doesn't that just lie with the police i mean they they made the decision to defer and not do the investigation that it was their responsibility state of oklahoma there's the issue of whether that was a they elected on how to use their resources and the in our point is there was testimony by the officer that did a certain thresholds which we met certainly seventy was some kind of relationship and the i don't think again i fed ex is voluntarily electing to say hey we will investigate please don't step on our toes how did that conversation recover some cash and spread it out amongst a few years he apparently in doing so i think it's on the record there are some he use fed ex to sip the gold and then the point that all of the persons involved with either helping him disperse the gold there are two other included in more of the two other employees who also help him to recover that money let me let me interrupt under oklahoma law doesn't federal express has to have in some way accepted the here well you can harp on delivery but you can also cause trust and in the end again if if if just follow my hypothetical earlier where they have followed their own internal investigation for their own purposes and had nothing to do with the police investigation get involved with that in the end been in severe different case because because there was no voluntary undertaking on their part it's not part time but based on the without prejudice or i did not even research that i did not even consider that i did so i don't know i would leave it up to the courts wisdom of discretion thank you two issues in a hurdle of whether the airline deregulation act preempts is negligence claim the district court found that he did not get the pellet did not get over the first hurdle which is federal common law applies in this case express was one of my wish directly so this stolen shipments are treated the same as last shipments barry vs delta airlines another case she cited there's all sorts of cases in fact there are no cases where a federal court has ever held  stolen shipment is treated different from just a last shipment with a purpose is a federal common law and what's happening here is the appellant is trying to of a federal common law by dressing his claim up against an air federal common law states that the contract of carriage governs the ship in this case you have the contract of carriage which is the air bill and the service of god which is incorporated by to what is arising from the transportation and for them that that break in cause a schmuck anyone cause would be when it goes from the point of an internal investigation for a loss or mis delivered a package to a police action because you've reported a stolen package and at that point it's no longer a rising from the transportation i know that's their position and it's just incorrect is just an incorrect position stolen shipments are treated the same as lawsuits looking for a package under or the service w this is still under federal paghman law or under the contract or the contract of carriage it is under federal probable i understand that we have to look at the language of the contract and does the language of the contract cover the situation where fed ex is gone does this tell the police we think this is stolen is the is that still part of the the service provided under the contract it is part of the service when you look at what the definition of service is you can look when this case started when mr brooks first ok he didn't know if it was lost or stolen what happens a lot of times is the shipping labels get torn off of packages and they get misdirected rerouted the wrong place you don't know it be a lot of packages are never found so you know what why would you have a difference between how you treat stolen packages or lost packages it would create a huge problem was pulling some kind of a scam and that maybe he had to call and sent mr brooks to break into his home in florida search for it and then they and then they get sued for tr the service that we provide our service is delivery of packages and when the package can't be found we look for it that's just part of the service we provide that no we don't as far as when the cut off is i tucked in or conveyor belt somehow by accident and two years later someone looks down and sees the package and says hey look rafael we also all castaway were tom cruise deliver that fed ex package after even on that island for eight years i would submit that until we deliver the package of services it continues and it was still in this case the package had not been delivered we were looking for it and you can call it an investigation  also have force effect affecting prices routes or services of an air carrier in this case the negligence and negative investigation claim certainly would affect our services but at the conversion of the judges up here quoted about all the law but it has to be a true conversion meaning that the appellant cannot escape the balance of the limitation law building which was a thousand dollars in this case in less fed ex than hurts the property to its own to take in the goal sold it and bought a new truck that would be a corporate conversion a true conversion but a true conversion does not take it did not take place in this case it was not alleged in the plight negligence claim one of the arguments that i think france is making to get around the preemption is just like a contract where people voluntarily agree to certain things where for example frequent flier miles where the court has said it's not preempted there i think the argument is here this was voluntary on the part of federal express to continue an investigation r the police and once they voluntarily agreed to conduct the investigation they had to do it non negligently and therefore that is not preempted because it was a voluntary undertaking i would that if it wasn't for carrier groups investigation a secret service would had anything the least unsolicited from the time the package was so its all time a there was a confession by justin digby i think took eighty days which is not very long but wrong location or tsto so i just disagree with their characterization that this was a voluntary under sec it was a continuation of the service we were tendered a package in redmond washington were deliberate oklahoma city it got so from a city and disappeared what we were doing is conducting continuing to delivery service by trying to find that package so we could deliver it that's how you have to look at that's what's the best language in the contract that it goes back to what is a service under the interpretation of their life the regulation act and that is organ for anticipated services and this is certainly an anticipated service that we will look for your package or that was we have his department we have a huge warehouse where over goods go where we try to locate the owner or with the package it's just all part of the big service of fed ex provide i've got forty five seconds so just finishing up i like say federal common law has been adopted by all the circuits except maybe the tenth and maybe not the eleventh but  ruin the national uniformity that was the intention of congress and a huge policy issue under the airline deregulation thank you thank you counsel thanks