there's a one roof uniform rule for for that issue and that the final decision is separate from the attorney making it clear that from now on those are two separate decisions circuit presidents were specifically abrogated and and since the supreme court has never ruled on this issue it was respect to a unique statute which is the fellow say that this review that the shelter means good law then it's rejecting courts of appeals who have a look at it on a statute by statute basis and it cites decisions that involved attorneys fees and civil rights actions that attorneys face and maritime law and that we're supposed to say  bet if you're asking me your honor how much clearer the supreme court could have been if i would only say that they could have been more clear when they're abrogating all of the cases that they specifically mentioned in the in the  supreme court case i saw unless they cite every case you know in america where where where where not to take them seriously when they say that they are about to the uniform roe and that we shouldn't be using a statute what i what i'm saying is that post b didn't this court continued to enforce the idea that attorneys fees are part of the merits of cases in contract of contract attorneys statutory language creates a mandatory right to ward of costs and where that cost award would fulfill the legislative purpose of the statute that that works part of the mechanism that congress to be up to to be in par abrogated by by virtue of a rule civil procedure rules of procedure don't change substantive rights as usually i would i would mention collateral issue so is there any case where we have ignored the net post didn't check ss for i'm asking you meant that councils making is there was a distinguishment in certain not that i was able to locate your honor shelton is the stand alone case who did it followed shelton in the sabbaths a bright line rule it would make if it would contradict the clear language of food an edge to hold otherwise and if that you sue for compensation he claimed he was owed under colorado statute which is similar to the file a fake a prevailing party attorney fees provision the jury awarded less than the court has not followed shelton and distinguished it except in contract cases and what do you mean do you agree with that you know is that just where the contract itself says you're entitle they involve somewhat similar issues where attorneys fees arse are litigated at the same time as the underlying merits of the case in every all three cases i saw that they tried to appeal the attorney's views and the  merits judgment and the court has consistently dismissed the attorney's fees appeal as it's a collateral issue separate from the merits and the merits emp competition right but the merits the point here is that the merits are separately appealable and required to be appealed something even more i think october th twenty dollars team this is that appendix eighty nine dollars before entering the merits final judgment the court entered a warning order regarding final judgment stating that because of the delay occasioned by these outstanding issues the court disagree with the merits and the logic and the case law cited counsel relies on policy considerations i think to try to to raise is and by the way the offer of judgment is at the pentagon pages forty six and forty seven so if you want to look at the exact language  the the amount that critical languages defense offer three thousand five hundred dollars inclusive of liquidated damages plus most significant where there a reasonable amount of has tried to create completely ignores the work plus and in the report a recommendation by a magistrate i thought there was some pretty  helpful quote i guess i would say he cites to merriam webster's dictionary for the definition of the word plus because you argue that it means anything other than we're offering attorney fees and addition judgment the offer unlike ours was silent on costs or fees and just offer judgment in the amount of four thousand dollars in that case the th circuit held that the u s supreme court the middle case on offer easily and floated over and in many cases where there's a rule sixty eight offer served in an apple as a case i can't see anything in the language of the statutes of the f l a say as compared to other statutes where rules sixty eight applies at the rules of procedure as your honor pointed out and let me see there was one rule sixty eight would prevail right i would agree with that your honor and in any of that i actually think the policy argument goes the other way if we're going to get into policy was a cases are small claims so and avoided you know three years of litigation that were still going on now so i just don't see the argument from the language of the statutes the rule or the rationale on a lot of policy see decision