we'll start with the first case from calendar targeted one versus carnival corporation and see council here good morning that is found in a different document that is in titled son their terms and conditions i have seven points first of all that it's reference referencing another document doesn't doesn't the the the referenc alone isn't doesn't make it not a document does mean as long as it's specific to referencing another document that's known to the parties or noble of the parties that's all right yes your honor and isn't this reference to the to i'm trying to say your honor is that there is a stretch in connecting the dots from the first document that is mention which is the contract of employment to the second dot which is memorandum circular number ten amendments but since that's not what i asked you i ask you did you put before the court anything to indicate that the document that your client reference in your client's employment was different no your honor ok then them was the core out of order then in accepting this as being the terms and conditions that were referenced referenced in reference to go through the three different documents that's all we're trying to say it's a long stretch to connect from the first document to the fifth document you're saying by its very nature the fact is that several jumps that therefore it can't be incorporated by reference of the original agreement between your client and it's not that you're on it there is a break in the connection your honor because these other terms and conditions was never mentioned in the second document that was mentioned which is the be only a member of them circular number nine and regulation of attack are you saying therefore that there are terms and conditions that it's a document wasn't attached something was attached that had a different name terms and conditions and therefore your argument has to be that there are no governing terms and conditions because the only terms and conditions that were tagged were not the ones that were incorporated by reference correct brecker owner but this also covered things like dental treatment if necessary due to an accident your client didn't have a right to dental treatment if if his teeth were knocked out in the course of which i'm sorry i don't understand your honor your question i'm looking at paragraph six of the standard terms and conditions which says your client is entitled to dental treatment if he suffers a dental problem while on on the see it it describes preexisting illnesses deals with many many subjects regular working hours are you saying that you're that this document did not govern your client's employment and what we married to what i'm trying to say your honor is that i got to on my client didn't sign a copy of this agreement and if ever he needed some dental treatment it could have been briefly please your honour's i think you've hit on the exact point that's at issue here there were standard terms and conditions there was a valid contract for the period of time that this event occurred valid there's a valid agency connection between all three of the entities that was approved in up in the motion to dismiss pursuant to declarations and other information provided through earlier discovery which indicated that that valid connection applied through each of the manning agencies going to then carnival p l c which operated the queen mary two upon which mr peggotty one had worked for many years under several different contracts all of which he signed all of which incorporated the standard terms and conditions of the a which was dictated by the filipino government as it related to foreign workers and including crew members philippines requires  the philippines an overseas employment ministry it binds all of the filipino cruise workers that means that they cannot agree to terms and conditions that  comply with that document without violating philippine correct they can i do not believe they can they cannot get employment in less they agree to those terms and conditions they will not be  not can they enter into a separate contract altogether something different than that i suppose if there was something in addition to whatever the standard terms and conditions require they can get more than the standard terms and conditions but they certainly can't get less agree to unless they cannot agree to get us one of your client just trace for us if you will the evidence that we have the carnival was a party to this contract well the primary  evidence first is the employment contract which names the filipino manning agency that's a contract between whom and that's a contract between the filipino manning agency the colombia man and manning agency referencing the queen mary two that the cruise ship upon which mr peggotty warren was employed the queen mary two is own by carnival p l c the british corporation that runs that cruise ship that he had served on for many years where is the indication that carnival was a party to the contract well carnival is a party of the contract through being a beneficiary to the contract as indicated in the declarations there's a contractual relationship between the filipino maning agency the colombia manning agency and then carnival p l c who own the queen mary to the carnival has a contractual relationship with manning was correct and  deny that or affirm that i think what the plaintiff has said to date is that he has some issue with any privity of contract between all three of them because there was insufficient evidence to establish that that's what i'm getting  don't believe he states the opposite i believe that there's been he states there's insufficient information been provided to establish that connection all right so what are we left with is there not then some more question of material fact here well i don't believe so i mean this is the standard way that cruise ships operate in the philippines as far as crew members are concerned the philippines provides a great many crew members not only for carnival cruise lines across the world  and they are all they all operate under the same basic formula and they're manning agencies that recruit these crew members that contract with the various cruise lines and they provide staff for the various ships i mean this is the way this is the standard practice in the industry they sign employment agreements with the manning agencies which references the ships that they're going to be work on which you know pursuant there are two references the cruise line that owns the ship and then they are assigned  correct they must be they own the vessel they are the owners of that the placement point so to speak of the filipino crew member filipino crew member believes in the ins complaint he indicated that he worked for carnival  the carnival p l c is bound by a prat i don't know if there's anything in the record that indicates that specific connection i don't know that issue has come up in the case of the  terms and conditions of his employment correct and so if carnival wants to do business with filipino crew members it has to agree to abide by the terms and conditions of the i find require him and that's what i just asked honor i don't have it here in front of me i'm sure that there's a court have it in front i don't think it's ever been before the court i don't think it's ever been an issue was a contest that's my next question was it contested in front of the court that that wasn't the case it has never been contested you tell me about what's your view on on this on the issue of arbitration the court could have stayed the litigation pending arbitration right  usual way these matters are handled the district court could have done that if it did not agree that we'd already established a four factors that needed to be established to compel arbitration in the philippines the court decided that we had established the four factors conditions and for the year before didn't he there is nothing one for twenty thirteen and your complaint was that that wasn't the one that govern the year in question i'm not sure there contract i understand he showed up at the queen mary two without knowing what he'd be paid under what terms what health coverage there would be how long he would be i mean  the benefits so it's not just a one page employment agreement and that's just basically what he has signed setting aside these various important questions what's what's in it what what do you regard as your client's best interest do you want arbitration or you want this litigated in district court and why do you choose a particular venue that you that you would like to have over there so we would rather have that he would have better but would have better benefits to secure if he filed his case here in new york where you have opposed or you are now or pows arbitration ard you don't want