to everyone we are here for oral arguments jack judge would we have judge man in a judge caney on the phone and i understand all counsel are on the phone so our st case for today is standard administrator that's s c t under an insurance services and business development agreement called the a s c a administrative services agreement by the parties and the principle question presented is whether a district court addressing a section nine petition to confirm i'm going to the federal arbitration act can look beyond the face of the final arbitration award to incorporate  whether in arbitration proceedings it's acceptable for arbitrator's to make their final judgments through more than one document because actually when i look at the phase one award i'll call it what i see is it's called the partial finals award it's not called an interim award and when you look at the way the proceeding seemed to go on from the transcript and everything else it does seem that the arbitrators thought that they were completely wrapping up the issues from phase one and that partial final board and they wrapped up the issues from phase two in the war that you would like us to think is the only final war but that's not really how they phrased sides but why do you know it's not a loan why are you calling it standalone when it's preceded by the partial final award and there's no indication in the face to board that it's intended to be an integrated standalone document they could easily have said that if they wanted to but they didn't they could easily have said that yes and they could easily have also incorporated by reference have multiple claims in multiple parties sometimes a district court will resolve some claims of some parties and not issue a rule fifty four b judgment so although it's finally resolved for only part of it's been done prejudice to reinstatement when the arbitration was completed and the insurers wanted and we had stated the case but they needed to do something else they needed to somehow change awards it speaks in section eight in terms of the final decision of the arbitrators in the singular so that again what the arbitration is supposed to be flexible in looking at these awards the phase one the final phase to award the arbitrators carefully bifurcated what issues they were going to address in each part of these proceedings and there's some procedural history that also explains why they may have done it this way and again i'm just having trouble seeing why the arbitrators needed to write the final award as a consolidated one and phase two ward instead of letting them be as they are of your opponents say look you know he said the arbitrators weren't finished with it they did finish after phase two at that point all claims of all parties were resolved and it was ready to move to some sort of judicial recognition and enforcement or confirmation type proceeding so i'm not sure how judge guzman needed to change the st order is order what we we think that to the panel and sought clarification on the final order and they didn't do that and they could have also brought up a section a lot of the requests to filings in order to understand better the scope of say so too because it does seem pretty clear that the arbitrators were not willing to allow you to really open issues that they had resolved in phase one yesterday it is our position that this shouldn't be an actual science in parsing the arbitration record that under this procedure the section non confirmation procedure it's just the four corners of entitled to do that you know some people prefer not to go to arbitration for that reason that arbitrators don't have the same obligation the courts do to explain themselves but i'm looking at the final phase to ord and it's really quite clear that it's addressing only phase two here by renders its final phase two award as follows and then it has these five numbered paragraphs  so isn't it a stretch to read this as also in compassing phase one when it when it really singles out phase two we don't think it is a stretch when it position i've thought that was contested it is contested it is contestants but it's not contested that the phase one issues under motion to reconsider  motion to modify were in play in phase two were those motions denied by the arbitrators well the motion for for reconsideration was denied the motion  in motion to modify and certainly those motions were in play even to the close of the argument phase two and counsel for s c he made the point of making sure that those motions were still alive the motion to reconsider and a motion to modify filed in front of the panel in phase two so that it was it was not a clean the decision here it was one continuous arbitration and it ends with the final order let me turn to the interim award and we've raised two construe section one thousand seven hundred and eighteen and nineteen of the relevant agreement and see what in fact the scope of this agreement is because what the arbitrators did when they looked at those sections i'll phrase a little differently i think they regarded arbitration as required as mandatory for everything except the section seventeen issues but it was optional for those issues there's no there's no language saying it's forbidden the only thing that it says is if the parties choose to go to court they may on that but somebody's got to make a move to go to court under section one teen and if you do then you have to be in dallas county either in the federal or state courts but i don't see any language in any of those sections that forbids arbitration it just doesn't compel it the only option that's provided under the language is section one team which is adjudication we think the two of them work together we don't we don't see this this nonsensical gap in the w rule so it's a little bit of a clear dream and also says that texas procedural rules applies to the arbitration but the carve out in section eighteen the current health section section seventeen indemnity claims from the arbitration provision also carves out those claims from thing we should discuss is the fact that these petitions under the federal arbitration act are governed by the rules for the making of motions that's what section six of the federal issue and understand that to encompass everything when they say all of their claims for release by the parties i didn't say all other phase two claims they didn't say all claims entertain since january st or whatever they say all other plans for release by the parties shouldn't exist something we should get clarification from the arbitrators on well and obviously there was no thing zero awards that could be superceded or overturned all that that statement is saying is that in respect of the matters decided in this phase to be decided everything had some explanation for the conclusions that it reached and that your clients you and your clients objected to this request that's correct then why did you object and any kind of reason toward would would have disambiguated this immediately it is not correct that i objected to the position that i take took in this arbitration and i take them all arbitrations as it's up to the arbitrator to decide never make it might business to tell the arbitrator how to write i only ask them what it is that they should find how they express themselves has to be up to them and i think in this case an otherwise perfectly confirmable phase one where all the judge said in that decision was that he didn't have jurisdiction to hear the matter and he dismissed for lack of jurisdiction his own jurisdiction unless the party agree otherwise and it's your position that the party did agree otherwise to the lower the four three or whatever percent and then without telling you  the f c c people reconsidered and just took the extra five hundred and fifty thousand dollars without notice is that more or less what happened to exactly what happened and the art and there were so it was a lot of time spent could be  would've been electing this and that they had no duty to run off into court on this claim even if there was i believe they say they say but i think they're aggregating to themselves a right that they don't actually have because this provision is very clean not only that there must be an indication of litigation but the timing which it should are some rules of arbitration that i'm familiar with there comes a moment early on in the arbitration when the arbitrator will set out terms of reference or you know contested issues or whatever they want to call it something like that so does something like that happen under the aaa commercial rules or whatever set of similar rules you're using for this arbitration i'm just trying to get at how that's really you think they should have known that this issue was in play want to participate in or be traditions in the hopes that they can get things done more quickly and with control costs now that did not succeed perhaps in this case but that is the focus and the idea that you can arbitrate an language and it's not lost on us that the party that blocked the attempts to get a reason toward from this panel can't live with the four corners of the war they submitted to the court and you can't make his arguments without trying to go back into the record and put the reasoning isn't that he dropped he says he didn't object that we gave the cite let the court was an outrageous overreach he paints a picture as if the panel came up with that that phrase without any help from him well had an absolute right under the n s a to take its administrative fee which was five point five percent under the agreement out of the account that it managed and the only way the arbitrators could a fact that there was an agreement to reduce that fee to four three percent i know you don't think that's right but the arbitrators found that isn't that part of their job to interpret the way the contract was being a wanted we don't know what the arbitrator system because he didn't have the reason to board that's why we kept asking for a reason the warrant we took a look at that interim phase one award and there were many many questions we don't know what they what they found there tried to back sell it by going into the record and making arguments to put some