or i have to acknowledge that the fifth circuits recent decision in marvie full spectrum lending means that the fifth circuit at least has answered the jurisdictional question presented by this case in the negative from my viewpoint the district court order compelling arbitration saying action pending completion of arbitration and administratively closing the case with no other indication of the court's intent is not a final decision but of course the circuit is not bound by decision of the fifth circuit we've got the listing there was i believe an argument and i still think there is some argument at least that this was an appealable decision because what i would urge the court to do this court to do is to analyze the question more in the terms that were suggested by the supreme court's decision possibility that the of the planet could come back to the district court for entry an execution of judgment so obviously in the supreme court's view the mere possibility that the party has to come back for execution of judgment is not does not personally make it appealable order the same thing is true in the current case the entire matter has been referred to arbitration and the district court has literally nothing more to do but to execute the judgment now i would argue that war well of course you are we've already raised all those organs for the strike when it's fate but you don't lose anything by going back in arbitrating and coming back and raising all those issues again well other than other than the trouble presented by this case if the parties properly choose arbitration in the first place is the clause about arbitration valid and enforceable secondly a distinction that the district court not recognized there or the did the parties really choose california arbitration procedure law is that distinct provision of the contract valid enforceable and third parties really choose to be governed by california's wall applicable to health care providers an entirely different body of law that the other side is arguing we agreed to in the choice of foreign law in this arbitration agreement the magistrate in the district court made a number of fundamental errors in lumping these three questions together and stimming that everything was governed by california law follow california law for all purposes but only for two limited purposes namely arbitration procedure well three summary judgment and the adoption of california's law of according to health care providers  so therefore under a well recognized federal president the court should apply nevada law to the contractual validity and unfortunately questions and the better have all the all the relations to the contract there was not even any mention of california at the time of contracting adopting specific provisions of california law and are not it's not a call for an adoption of california law for all purposes the other side concedes that in their brief at pages eleven to twelve there is no clause governing the enforceability inability of there is no choice of law made by merely mentioning california law in the contract that was in essence a reference to california on an intention to drop all california law i don't think that's valid because that would be the terms of the contract itself specifically limit the choice of law to specific provisions of california law and by standard contract interpretation that means that the other questions that are not adopted within the choice of law are governed by the law of the form and i'm used the time for about thank you  in any event i do believe that the claimant d s was well aware and really had an expectation that if anything happened between the doctor and him that it's going to be decided by california that it's not as if he's in contract or unconscionable and this gentleman had thirty days to opt out and he didn't mutuality of the can also be shown by the fact that the agreement was drafted in accordance with california code and the reason california code put forth those provisions is because it was supposed to be drafted to tell lay persons patients what they're doing they don't just say like some of the commercial contracts we're going to go to arbitration it's as if you sign and you're giving up your right to a trial by jury now federal court doesn't require that in fact you know that they probably would say  will be submitted for decision and we will now hear arguments in rogers versus