we'll move on to the final case on the calendar today white house versus port authority new york new jersey good morning may please the court my name is your by chance there i would like to focus the decision fundraiser versus composition of applied to the doma commerce clause the standard of review guides under rule twelve b six the court is limited to the four corners of the complaints to review the fact budgets to see the financial i'm going up the decision flipped it's reasoning that motive does not matter another example the decision out that internal deliberations for the prize does not matter only practice matters at the same time the decision relies on the deficit as the internally stated reason for the toll rates besides in practice there have been high yields of surplus is another example the final example the decision relied on the deficit hypothesis that not all revenues could have been diverted to projects outside the idea and yet failed to review the very allegations stated in the nd amended complaint that the actual surplus the district court correctly dismissed the amended complaint challenging the total two thousand and eleven toll increase under the dormant commerce clause because the complete fail to meet the plausibility test issues and it would be a waste of judicial resources to ask the court to go back and again review the allow for discovery over the same issues that had been litigated fully of the two claims and allowing the district court to stay discovery in this case while it went forward with discovery in the triple a case and decided that case what is  sorry go ahead i said would not have been more appropriate if you're going to look at this other evidence and other facts to have converted it into a summary judgment in the sense i asked to participate but he was denied and so that that case is unto itself all of the discovery that could have been done and all of the  financial disclosure that was made in that case decided by mr white house but it was within the body of that case so i would i would suggest to this court that start decisis was the correct way to proceed factual findings have been made and their corporate it into a decision they become part of the law the case it's not going to change the fabiano affidavit which was heavily relied on by the court below in the  excess money in the interstate transportation network or was it as the port authority said operating at a deficit so that issue was found in the in the aaa case in two thousand and sixteen that in fact the port authority was operating at a deficit when you did a cash flow analysis projecting the capital needs along with the operating needs of the intrastate transportation network that that was not going to change published in the actual financial statements to the port authority publishes every year on that basis that the district court couldn't convert to a summary judgment then another point is to do this to court in aaa nor to specifically said that aaa didn't do their math they didn't present any numbers they didn't attempt to challenge the numbers to the port authority when if for example let's say that the aaa case was debating the numbers between connection with that separate litigation so i mean it's like we we have europe papers and we have your arguments thank you very much the court will reserve decision and that completes the