case has a very complicated procedural background so if i can just start by explaining just a little bit  appeal of the order compelling arbitration and the court in denying the motion to reopen didn't cite the microsoft baker case the court just said well you decided to dismiss the case so it's your fault i think that the court pointing recently to the recent henson case is really directly on point here that will sixty be is an appropriate way to reopen such a ca plaintiffs here rely on th circuit authority to change in law that you think makes this like hanson seem like your appeal was dismissed under under saddle law i with prejudice and greentree was with prejudice and the th circuit prior opinion says it is well established that section sixteen b of the federal arbitration at bars interlocutor orders compelling arbitration and staying judicial proceedings and then it goes on to say that that the dismissal without prejudice isn't an appealable final judgment so we we're is the change of law that you prejudice to allow for an appeal and order compelling arbitration so that if we get it wrong in the prior p l is that essentially your argument that the district court should reopen the judgment because the th circuit got it wrong well the nice circuit prior ruling in this case so what the ritual in the prior feel of this case that would not have jurisdiction to consider the case that does not mean that the district court can't reopen the case when we go back down and that's exactly what happened the henson case that hanssen case playing to try to create appellate jurisdiction by getting a dismissal and this court held that be dismissed with prejudice as happened in henson but then the plaintiffs are allowed to have it reinstated after it turns out they don't have a tough section it really makes no sense why a case that was dismissed without agreed and granted that and importantly in a footnote in our motion and i believe this in the record we said that we want to appeal the dismissal the order compelling arbitration the labor co situated plaintiff were one thousand dollars plus the aaa was saying they wouldn't start the case even to get an arbitrator to decide whether the arbitration clauses forcible until we put up arbitration deposits which would have been in the thousands of dollars so we did you did you ask for a waiver of the deposit requirement we asked for a waiver of the plaintiff from having to pay anything other than the filing fee he would have had to pay in court and that was rejected right understood then that we could go back to the district court and ask for the one thousand two hundred and ninety two certification essentially we feel that's what this report had done in granting our request to dismiss in order to allow an appeal that we didn't use the term this is a certification or five hundred and ninety two but by that time the aaa had already closed the case which had proved the point we were trying to make on appeal that the plaintiff could not vindicate his rights in arbitration because of this cup winning issue the coverall insisted enforcing so that point we decided to go back to this report and explain look this needs to be reopened because he needed or telamon under holder he has to have some place that he can pursue his claims and then that was when the district circuit appeal that he was not going to reopen the case absent instructions from the circuit to do so well i understood what he said was i don't know whether this is appealable or not you'll find out from the night circuit so that we decision from this court or anything that has ever let a case even final when the merits of arbitration claims have not been sent to be resolved because obviously there are things left to do that's exactly the reasoning that the supreme court said poor thing in green tree when it held it had jurisdiction over one of us and the merits of the parties claims to arbitration no no answer to decision supports what the plaintiff tried to do here that's exactly what the supreme court said retreat that's exactly what we pointed out in our opposition to their motion to dismiss the federal order to asia and i could not be any iraq iran no interlocutory appeals from borders in favor of arbitration unless you the appeal ability of it motion depends on the appeal ability of the underlying order you can use a rule sixty b motion to convert and not water into a final order that's what this  disposed of the merits definitively by sending the merits to arbitration and that that is the difference that that tripped you up in this circuit appeal i don't think any or any of the courts along the the force of dota the arbitration agreement not with respect to the merits if that arbitration was completed the merits still were in front of the district court isn't that correct well so arbitrator had said that he did have in arbitration but we weren't even able to do that arbitration here on like the other case we actually did the arbitration or tried to do the arbitration and learned that we couldn't do the arbitration so we don't there is no forum here for the plaintiffs larger issue in the henson case i think there's been a lot of focus on whether there's a change in the law i think the change in the law frankly was court traquair you know decision which went against interactive and  so if the prior canales decision in this case to be the change of law which is what i say it is because it goes against interactive and women do if this court were to remand to the district court to apply hans it could look at whether that change in law merits same result as enhancement it really makes again makes no sense in henson there was the same calculated attempt by the plaintiffs to get to the appeals court not able to they should be able to go back to the district court which is what we thought we were going to be able to do it was just it was a complete surprise that we wouldn't be able to go anywhere have had this court taken your its diction