not and that's that's our point is that he actually he made many conclusions in any order but they're not actually findings of fact he was first evidence in either direction and then finds it was not in agreement arbitrate it does not make any findings of fact in certainly isn't usually determined according to what the contract looks like when it's written which is my point about how you shouldn't consider larger fees because the contract as written doesn't allow class actions however subsequent conduct in the course of litigation in which parties waive arguments  court confirm that under california law that the court looks at and proposed change to the contract of this nature to determine whether the contract was illegal as written and then applies the normal severance law to determine whether it should or should not have or the part that is the offending part in here if the court determines that something about the fee structure in the contract needed to be severed it would be easily severable the california law arm and doris in other always a question of federal preemption compared to california contract law that straddle law pretty much consistently throughout the circuit is if the contract is silent for arbitration then there is no class action all of the federal happens is you come into court and you speak and force the arbitration award so it isn't a plausible reading of saying you have to arbitrate you have mandatory arbitration before you can go to court another way of saying you have your arbitration and then once the arbitration award is anchored you then go to court for enforcement purposes as contrast and with permitting somebody to go to court in the first instance is not a possible reading the defendant's reading and first i mean that's not what the district court found in reading the contract the district court found that it wasn't clear that this requires binding arbitration but second if it is the normal procedure set out in the federal and the california of the request and it seems to mean that you don't get arbitration if the other party is going to quote court first that that may not be the right reading of an that's certainly to me the most reasonable reading but has more than one connotation in one of the two languages and yet is more precise in the other it doesn't make the translation inaccurate but it does mean that a native speaker a reader might see it differently and i guess that's my concern for both parties i mean i i just i don't even really special i'm not trying to do it myself i'm just trying to figure out how in the absence of any evidence in the record that that occurred i don't think there's a basis for determining that that occurred and no no reason to do clear if ohio law is seen as california law and those are the points about the excessive cost in physician and the effect of the class action down and put colors on those points california law it's clear that there are public that should be resolved against the party that track the adhesive contract and brought the ambiguity into existence and that's the rule that clearly applies here and that should be enough to say that the contract doesn't require binding arbitration and since the only thing be the cost if the arbitration were to go forward under the american party but by a single party under the american arbitration association consumer rules which do not allow  compel that conclusion if the supreme court agreed with the other side it would court agreed with the other side the it depends on how if it were the question of state law is a class action down unconscionable if the california supreme court said no it's not that would affect  was preempted if it said it was said that yes california law makes the sun conscionable but that law is preempted by the f a a is another federal law that's the question of federal law where the california supreme court determination would not be court for more than thirty years has said that the right to bring a class action is a really important right in cases like vasquez which the superior court more recently in the linda decision it's recognized that a class action meet the essential  a class action then is essentially a get out of jail free cards for defendants in consumer cases online was not an arbitration case it was a choice of law case it was well had adopted a virginia forum selection requirement it was requiring consumers to fill all the way to virginia to litigate consumer claims ended up it had a choice of law cla opportunity to negotiate and that makes it a stronger than usual case proving it he says also the fact of the language saying arbitration before implementation of proceedings even if it doesn't impose a non binding arbitration requirement we there isn't any evidence of any lack of clarity on this understanding of the spanish translation in response to judge graters question there is no evidence that anybody was confused essentially unlike the shall be will be resolved and will be