we are now going to move to case number two for the morning this is appeal nineteen dash two thousand nine hundred and thirty rise claim solutions agreement and the supreme court decision in atlanta money in atlanta in atlantic marine the supreme court held that a proper application of course you know who are its government to transfer  is it your argument that the district court applied the wrong standard or that the standard was misapplied your honor we believe that  interest to me it strikes me that you're characterizing the principle brief that the form selection clause weight in and of itself is a public interest factor that in the reply brief you seem to back off a bit indicate well it's never been recognised as a public interest factor but it is still substantial a private interest factor that should merit some deference is my characterization unfair there or is that correct yon are i would respectfully disagree a little bit about whether we characterize it as a substantial private interests that are in the quiet way but that that was not our intention in is exclusively private or exclusive it public the supreme court's language says does not the parties have a legitimate interest in the person or their agreements which would sound like a private interest factor case we also point out that the factors that are involved here would likely be involved in most if not all diversity cases there would be in which the currency transferred to a busy district  that jurisdiction likely be more familiar with the claims and because the southern district of indiana is one of the busiest courts in the country that jurisdiction would likely have a wider docket the southern is significant to kind of transfer back to posture in which the question presented arises in other words another way to ask that question is don't you think that the teachings of the atlantic marine should make a six make it expects really difficult for the jurisdiction it's designated in the foreign selection clause to relinquish jurisdiction and transfer the case back to the originating form here in california once federal claims drop out of the last three other words it's is if the form for action  given a fact that then but then hollowed the california claims or the federal claims dropped out of the case and i wonder whether that's significant in your judgment burden of showing why the public interest factors would weigh against enforcement here that burden was placed on lives i think that is one issue and then in addition there's the public interest factor it docket congestion by at various points in the litigation deciding that d it would be better to move the case out of that district to another two to the other district which i think would create transfer petitioners failed to demonstrate that the southern district of indiana applied the wrong standard or that no reasonable person would transfer would agree that trial court was reasonable that analysis of the private and public interest factors would be changed such that no weight is applied to the plaintiff's choice of form in all private interest factors were entirely in favor of the pre the form selection clause whereby the form selection clause rise offered states rise may need to prosecute such litigation employees states that initiate litigation selection clause which would provide an avenue whereby that claim would be forced to be litigated in california you mentioned that there might still be a provision in the form selection clause that would provide an avenue where a claim would be litigated in california did you it if that will broken help i think we got you that supplemental appendix page eight indicates a clause with regard to litigation of an employee dispute in the employees form form state is that correct thank you judge tripled you have any further questions for mr hatcher oh no thank you and judge scott or do you have any further questions for mr hatch or i do not mr murray we're going to go back to you when you have five minutes of r suggested that he would likely consider those claims to be covered by california law but that hasn't been decided by the coach i would also add that as the case moves forward regardless of which court it is then wise would have the opportunity to amend its complaint and including adding potentially federal claims to its counter claim i don't obviously can't predict whether the t