made as to whether arbiters that are representing a really spear of interest i'm going to put it agree on the third arbitrator or whether it's the disputing parties that agree on the third or arbitra least they have the opportunity to consult concerning who the arbiter will be or to take a list of can start striking until i am one left or whatever the case may be it just seems to me me that there is some obligation before you turn to the courts to say we want this independent adjudication process which is fast supposedly inexpensive supposedly efficient we want to go that route and here you are you've tied up a district court for a while you've got us tied up in this case for a while we've completely to think the theory of arbitration if this happened in every arbitration case there wouldn't be any more  it on up from there so what in this record shows that there was an examination made as to the independence and confidence of the third appointed arbor i don't think there's anything regarding the third independent the parties that appoint an arbiter and now they're unhappy with that arbiter switching the vote right or coming over on the other side after hearing all the evidence no i don't think so if i think i mean just respond by way of narrative from the record that represented during the month so why did she ask at that point i guess the thing that troubles me about your position is that you knew that two of the three arbitrators were party designated arbitrators therefore by definition they were not the party designated arbitrator now it seems to me that that would set off some kind of an alarm in the mind of fidelity that there may be something about the relationship between mr li and durga ma that we might like to know about it is  they're related or they've worked together i trust with respect i just don't think that that factual predicate actually exists in the real world and on top of that i would say peter for any reason i want it might be because i think they're the smartest person around and would be good on a complex commercial case it might be because i think they're going to be biased in my favor no matter what the evidence is and hopefully rule in my favor as the arbitrator that i mean the motive i guess is sort of had across all spectrums the question i'm asking you though is why wouldn't you want to know what motivated my selection arbitration award to raise the issue and the case law and the rules say that's not how we play the game in arbitration we don't stand back and wait until we find out that we've lost before we come in and suddenly raise this claim to get a neutral that that program was what got the three people there it was of calling up the american arbitration association sent us saying send us three neutrals and it turns out that two of them are biased one way or the other go shop for whatever you want but when you when you when you're looking for neutrality and you say to the three three arbiters we're now switching through it to a neutral now it seems to me that one believe i have three and a half minutes of my twenty if i don't want to have a short but if i may reserve the time for reply i thank you one that we're talking about that is the appointment of the arbitrator they're going to lose not concede on the october two thousand telephone conference call that the arbitrators converted from party of clinton arbitrators to such a conversion i didn't believe it was and i saw the declaration and it is obviously very carefully drafted as i expect good lawyers to do but if if then the arbitrators agreed that this is an act neutrally which i believe  term yes i mean are we split after splitting hairs here if a person says i'm going to act neutrally it means i'm going to act without favor to one side or the other without disability two things if i might first i didn't panel and he said there was no such conversion there can't be unless you make it crystal clear that's what's going to happen the second point is even if there were a conversion under the fa contact with them for twenty years except on occasion lunch there was no pain anywhere in the last thirty four thirty five years that there are reported cases in the schools which has just anything remotely close to these fans the case is really focused on the following kinds of things a financial asian shit past present or potential in the future a very close family relationship such as in more light where the arbitrator was the son of the president total civil procedure section probably the nine point one the cutting one point nine there is a procedure to request a disclosure statement and if the neutral arbitrator doesn't give you a disclosure statement you have fifteen days with lynn within which they have been disqualified and that happens automatically there was no such request under the rules of the american arbitration association if in fact a neutral arbitrator is required to make a case that came out of florida in which a neutral arbitrator did not disclose here's the geisha ongoing litigation with one of the parties in that case the court said you have to conduct an investigation or you don't have to because it's too hard to push too much of a burden this isn't florida this is california we were conducting this arbitration under the rules of the american arbitration association on laws in the state of california which that he had been converted from a party arbitrator to a neutral arbitrator with disclosure responsibilities but if they didn't they have to take the steps that are necessary to find out release believe that you can't go through an arbitration and then later raise the question of the bias of an arbitrator you have to do it when you have the means and the opportunity to do so or you start nine change of the judgment extended by will sixty be the devil he qualifies but if you look at the record they didn't present any facts whatsoever other than the fact that the judgment should be different under federal months later no once the nation what the facts are to justify relief under will sixty big night nothing in the record whatsoever i think that there is no basis for the court to grant an the opportunity and the ability to correct right when it happened there was no justifiable reason the most that fidelity says now is it just didn't understand section one hundred sixty one you didn't understand that the interest rate that expressed is expressed in the judgment is different then what you are entitled to but there is no justification for the making not knowing it and this court has ruled that you know never was really anybody's fault it was just i mean you may have known you know exactly what you intended but the judge may not have been thinking about section one hundred fifty one and at the time that he signed the i don't know they didn't raise the issue judge meant that federal courts post judgment interest is that by the fifty two week the bill that's the law and regardless of whose fault it was whether it was inadvertence mistake clerical by the rules with fifty nine a little sixty which they have to do certain things in a certain way and if you've got room you can't go back and complain what should've happened is they should have been a motion for reconsideration i believe but they couldn't do it because they don't qualify they can't come back and will that because it's too late so they try to do move rule sixty b but they can't show me any explanation any any justifiable fuse for the line not to be followed the way it's written you make an arbitration award the interest paid him to stand until paid well i would agree with you if the contract said so but the problem here is that it seems to me that the arbitrator's just simply declared the interest rate shall run at ten percent i assume that they were looking at california's interest on judgment statute but then you chose to come the federal court and ask that this arbitration award be confirmed as a federal judgment and it seems to me that's one nine hundred sixty one a kickstand so that the ten percent they can sell whatever interest rate they want under california law for prejudgment interest yes but it seems that once the judge of the work out here  they didn't add all the way until it's told the award is collected but that seems to be the clear implication of what they did because what they didn't do is they didn't say if you go to federal court you just will switch prejudgment i'll give you that i thought it's the post judgment under the statute that i think i'm making a distinction because i think if they said ten percent on the judgment on the awarding until canin into the judgment we're talking about a judgment not an award any more right that's another one of the fascinating questions in this case i think not and i think for this reason not subtle this is where the parties have said we're going outside the legal system we really can't give you any relief you just go any way you want to force your darn award we're not going to we're not going to reduce it to its essence all we're doing is saying whatever their word is ok but we're not going to give you any enforcement power the marshal is not going to go out seize any property or or anything under a judgment we're not going to have thirty our hands with ten percent interest you take the federal rate this by statute or forget it why isn't that the rule as you argue i don't believe in that's the rule when that's my point i don't believe in fact that's how it works it's my understanding that when an arbitrator's make an award you can either knock out the award because they didn't use either they did something distillers or  partiality corruption fraud none of which is here mr graham let me ask you a different question suppose the arbitrators had said nothing about interest would you concede that once the award was converted to a judgment that  sixty one a would then provide the rate of interest post judgment absolutely no question about absolutely and my time is up thank you very much th