breached in greece before this court but basically that decision affirmed the denial of the petition for writ of mandate and then this sort of mandate and it refused to treat the antitrust issues that were mistakenly prematurely brought up in the  they're going to be immune anyway under these claims as to the the sherman act i don't believe that we have a dispositive ruling on that claim i could be mistaken as to that but my understanding is we don't have a claim or a decision on that because the state court said you know they're punting we don't have jurisdiction but what the  was the status of the state court matter at the time a motion to reopen was denied it was that the trial court action had been dismissed and there was one more appeal which was pending so that was still pending it was that why would it have been an abuse of discretion under the circumstances to do what the court did refuse to reopen and that was still pending well because after time what had been determined by the court of appeal were the three zero zero seven nine three zero five five one rulings and we didn't know if the court was ever going to rule on the antitrust issue later steak or the state court of appeal and it was still pending and the court refused to reopen because that was still in the hopper over in the state side is that fact why was it an abuse of discretion to deny the motion to reopen given that you didn't appeal the stay in the first place right it may not have been if the proper standard of review is abuse of discretion the problem now is that the what's your what's your remedy back in the trial court right now i don't believe that we have a remedy in the trial court because we have a final decision from the state court of appeal so the court of appeal says that's it we don't have any subject matter of appeal has now ruled there is no massive is there anything now pending in the state court system you know ok you know that so could you could you go back to the district court today and say ok whatever was true last year or whenever this was now there's nothing pending in state court anymore so now it's time to reopen and the abstention it's an excellent question your honor and it's some mental gymnastics that i and i think opposing counsel been going through the decision came out at the very end of last year to answer the questions directly as i can i don't think there is except for the whole business about the england preclusion somebody even if you lose this you can still go back is the way i see it right it seems to me that they've been burned well then you got the england problem right right we have an england problem and believe me it's not as if there hasn't been a lot of thought about this kind of thing in the few weeks that were available i mean it seems like  something like that would be really good one of my concerns was gee we've waited for a yearly prefers now we're losing our priority our place in line and you know what's the best way to proceed at this point of view that if we can stay here sure  not going to overturn the writ of the ministry to man the decision which is denying that and we had you know the court determined that independent judgment was the proper standard of review against over our arguments of course that it should have been  it would be proper for south coast cap to go back to the district court and say ok you state it before because there was an appeal pending that appeal is over now there is the england resurveyed england reservation problem counsel because if you don't seek review and at that point the time had not run if you don't seek review and the court of appeal pinion comes final i won't oppose reopening on  state court litigations going on because it's over i will and one of the reserve my rights i mean one reservation another issues others so that part of the case is moot so if this court's not going to