and our final case this morning is cranch versus appleton  got come website suggests that this is really one dealer with multiple locations but it seems to me that it's not unusual for brand name franchises or dealerships to engage in common advertising and that just isn't temperately preclude the individual franchises or  again they share personnel just regard to the corporate formalities what what what is so unusual about our case today in that regard are a number of things that are congress made the express policy choice to exempt small businesses nd small businesses can't do everything in house they must either outsource or integrate with polluted companies this is a practical necessity and it achieves economies of scale and when you put these together the law is and has to be near integrating operations is not enough it's misuse of the corporate form the triple zero knockers intertidal sat here in opposition summary judgement chris presented no yes and very importantly any employee has only one employer of record only one an infrequent occasions and it usually occurs more than an employee wants to move to another city where there's a dealership location they can ask  paragraph sixty we go through that in more detail but there's only one employer record there's only one company is withholding payroll and social security taxes and that sort of thing at a time there is no employee of any of these companies w was the same facts that we saw on bridge and i think that's wrong or you were on the panel and ridge small businesses and often aggregate functions including marketing marketing is very expensive and so sometimes they band together and use the same website potential customers to the website at that point to the point that they make it to the web site they start dealing with an independent company if you see the example of apple products if you wanted to buy a car from apple cars you would go to the apple socially harmful activity that's going to unpunished that's true in every single title so in case of its meritorious the congress made the choice to exempt small businesses from title seven and it's not the place this court to make a different policy  this is how they operate how they have to operate and how this court would rule that that's a narc to aggregate them and a host of businesses would be swept under the umbrella of title seven and that's not a congressman that can't be the  intent to defraud here there's not right here these are companies who are just trying to make it in a very competitive business by combining and integrating some of their operations in street ways and they do everything  noted that you know bill piercing is an extraordinary remedy it's something that doesn't happen by default it happens only if a company affirmatively forfeits its right to recognition of a legal fiction and there's no evidence here that anything that dealerships did at that point they're separate companies they follow appropriate court records that have meanings that retain records they file their own tax returns they have their own bank accounts they own their own property in an all but a few respects they are entirely independent work so i don't think that this is a close call i think that we're right on the fairway of bridge and papa and many other cases the district courts in the circuit have wrestled with the same sort of facts and the same result should hold and it's the only result that makes sense