start recovering their contingent fee mr cool one suit in state court in washington requesting that the state court enter an injunction and joining the book written attorneys from engaging in a practice of law in washington state and also seeking a the florida lawyers needed to have a license to appear in an arbitration proceeding involving the securities laws in the state of that took place in the state of washington you know you are of washington  didn't say couldn't but watching i said it was not as if if you were saying washington sanctioning washington resident for the unlawful practice of law the ultimate question here is whether the put my real point here is that i just don't get why there's an overarching state of washington policy that just is so strong that it compels litigation in the state of beyond the record here they did a crappy job and they didn't deal with any of the sorts of things that a washing practitioners would have dealt with it in the statement of claim that that's for the trial court or that's for the watching state court to evaluate whether  it's a question of you know once you determine that the clause is valid it doesn't get so fat will just follow boom you just miss the question follows and how do you enforce it and i want to make three points and th court held that if the clause was valid then it should be quote specifically enforced in the prem and it provided for the litigation in london before the london court of justice now a case that is very much like this in which there was a diversity case removed to federal court in alabama the defendant moved to dismiss but i just want to get clear we're talking about the noise i polish i don't didn't mean to misrepresent in stuart the issue initially in the district court they moved to dismiss for the transfer and the district we're going but we're worried about now is the must apply a specific federal statute when there is one that applies to the caves and the conundrum here is caused by the fact that we have said never mind stored after stewart we have district court will you know venue is so so your position is that just because they were removed that's their one shy at an appropriate venue and beyond that that's the end of it now your honor they could move it is it know and the question is whether it meant something particular to the fact that there are which dealt with foreign disputes that it's all the difference in the world so when the federal court doesn't have the venue is improper simply because a contract says things should be at a certain place is intellectually inconsistent is dishonest it is not consistent with the supreme court's ruling in storage as they should be right coke and the footnote  i don't think you could possibly have talked in the faster those last class court was to apply the docs prior case to determine whether it was mandatory it did that and decided to dismiss the case at that point there's no abuse of discretion and there's the p can't be right that a district court faced with a motion to dismiss has to put blinders on to the possibility of transfer as contrast in with question i mean it's perfectly obvious that going to be does that mean that when it's argued as it was argued here that the court should as well consider the transfer provisions of fourteen for  that the court should not have done that before dismissing when you've got a diversity caged in which there isn't and they all forum to which the action and the transferred unlike any of our other cases in which there didn't make that motion and mr frewen had the opportunity to make that motion or he crossed a motion and didn't do that so if the court recognizes the issue but nobody's moved for that relieve it can't be an you never get to the fortune of flying if you just automatically possibility it seems to me from reading massive amounts of foreign selection cases that the courts start to do a case by case analysis and decide what's the best thing to do with this case here night circuits or harmonize with other circuits are doing but certainly the plaintiffs never kind of want to make a transfer motion they don't want to transfer wealth that goes back to why did they sign the form selection class in the first place question your honor it's been beyond the scope of my represents and that's the that's what's really going on i mean aside from their desire to stay in the state of washington well i think what's going on is that  merits are results in claimants hospice his favor well you know i understand the strategy but i mean if the lawsuit is dead on arrival in florida if it does make a difference well it's also you assumes that the original venue was improper and not having to do with the form selection clause i get it correctly i'm sorry if you finish your question th normal rule for whatever is fourteen zero six or you can seek dismissal for improper venue assumes that the original choice of venue is improper for reasons independent of the form selection clause some so you couldn't transfer so there is no federal rule that a plot could possibly apply does that mean that necessarily there is no federal rule that ever applies to a request to dismiss when there is an alternative form available clearly the courts have surveyed that question several times and commentators  basically criticized you know the rule that other circuits are using depending on where they're writing it seems to me that it is an unclear area of the law but it's also an area of the why that congress must be aware of in the supreme court must be aware of and have chosen not to fix you know it because the circuits have different methods from force and form selection classes it seems that once it is settled in a particular circuit this is how you go about it presented to the district court this is how you go about resolving that motion here that motion never came before this court i mean you would choose not to make it and the other side obviously chooses not to  can't and the result is that we have this sort of strange resolve which is that the balancing that back for a for a with requirements never being made and instead you're getting out of court altogether strong that even under the bremen analysis the reform selection clause is unenforceable so never mind all this other procedural nicety clearly mr f one wants to be gratuitous there as well and well i say the claim that i'm not as regular as whatever i mean the the point is we've now it's coughed up to us and we have to decide whether washington's public policy for having only people who are licensed to practice law in the state of washington representing washington residents is such that that this election and claw should not be enforced well again i think there's a distinction between practicing on washington and practicing before the national association of securities dealers in the dispute resolution why hasn't why because the n t s b is an s r o as you're aware and it has its own well i would think that and i'm for a true public policy question to exist what mr flood would have to show is that there is some washington statute rule that  to be part of the contingency agreement mr frewen can't show biz no there is no body of white washington that says if you're going to have a legal services agreement that the parties cannot