court's inquiry regarding the wage statement claims there are two claims there is one for accurate itemized wage statements and one for payment for all wages two in the in this matter the the to say that it was in time barred it said that it was preempted so i think the reasoning suggested the court didn't believe it was time barred there either each one was not time very clear that the payment the obligation to provide accurate itemized statements is separate distinct from the dates and point and it passes do with the date in which compensation itemized we've seen them claim the failure to provide wages i believe also stems from the same public policy the idea is that we want you know this goes back to leviticus you know pay people what they're owed the public policy the statute was intended to provide employees payment for their wages and the fact that the wages made a crew after the employment doesn't deprive them of the right to be paid for what there is in that obligation  on that which he may have answered this right now but i don't want to just make sure why did the limitations period for your fourth cause of action commence when the plaintiffs quit or were terminated case one way or the other my argument was that the public policy underlying the statute incur is for the purpose of paying all wages due and based consisting without policy weight what when the statue of limitations just trying to figure out on the timing you don't have any case law supporting i was unable to find any cases involving payments accruing after the dates of employment because the stamp his feet in terms of the terminations of employment i recognize they are he says upon quitting work or terminations and so i'm just trying to figure out how can any unpaid residual payments that accrue after that and for various purposes on the show so they were essentially still providing services to the employer so i think it's that in big us as to where to suggest that they were in fact t fit into the traditional employment it would think doesn't fit and perhaps their claim does not exist for this type of employment where there is no quitting or termination contemplate a finite end to the employee before the cause of action i understand that arguments are good for point your honor i think  there's a slippery slope if we start trying to carve out groups of employees that may not fit the traditional contacts for we're just trying to figure out what the legislature meant in terms of the statute so it's not an argument i'm just trying to figure out whether or not the language of the statute in compas is this client i understand your honor and i recognize that this is a more challenging cause of action for us than say the accurate i have my seems on its face to bar the this particular claim you think because of public policy it should be read more broadly as opposed to the possibility that the legislature just an address the residual type situation when they pass this law if the if there is no case law and your argument is that the statute needs to be read in a particular why you would need to supply us with legislative history w not supporting your interpretation and you have not done that have you and i believe that's in the record your honor ok sorry it's i want to ask you because you argue that the district court abused discretion in dismissing your second cause of action which is for the failure to indemnify you claim the time barred without giving you an opportunity to amend that claim is that right practice your argument court that she should be granted leave to follow your third amended complaint in particular that your second cause of action was not time barred because you could cure any statue of limitation issues on that basis of holies declaration but you never ended up amending your complaint to include this allegation in your third amended complaint which is now subject to this appeal so i guess i'm just curious why didn't you do so and general and the amendment following the appeal the purpose of the third emetic complaint was simply to conform with the court's rulings on appeal it was not to address alleged deficiencies because those alleged deficiencies were not put forth and but until the motion to dismiss so that you know you didn't change it in any other way no the only changes that were made were made to conform of we believe was the court's ruling on appeal deficiencies as to the pleadings in the third amended complaint which is the first these motions or the first motions addressing the alleged deficiencies in the amended complaint that we would have an opportunity to see the court's position on the division or anywhere of that deficiency but it would make sense to make multiple you know amendments based on the court's rulings on these motions to dismiss and the fact of the matter is that that was the first time that these issues were being played as deficient these were alleged deficiencies in our pleadings and there would have been no prejudice to the defendants and lead to men should have been granted happened is up until two thousand and two it was ambiguous when the time for appeal would run in so in two thousand and two the rule change and said it with there is not final if there is not a judgment on a separate form then you have  entered because the room and order is relatively curt that it can be considered a final judgment on a standalone document and you could appeal from that about bankruptcy court decision preceded the two thousand and two amendment and if you were to yes indeed you were to adopt a shambles case it would undermine the public policy of the two thousand and two amendment which was to provide finality for when the appeals rise otherwise  ants are left in this great area where they need to determine which is the remained order have enough language to constitute a final judgment or is insufficient language such that i need to wait the hundred fifty days that type of concern used was exactly what the two thousand and two man was meant to address and for the reason we believe our appeal is timely we do have a question what's the status of the comedy action right now in state court the comedy so we go back again to the issue that we were discussing when you first were arguing your adversary scissors nothing in the two to show union would have been a better bargaining position if those claims had not been blown and so at least on the face of the complaint we cannot deny that claim this case it would be at five thirteen through five seventeen in the prior case it's at five twenty three through five twenty seven and and also in the prior case in the record at five eighty five eighty nine is the letter from the union explaining the settlement agreement to the plaintiff's counsel and explains in fact that there's the basis of the discounting and what's critical that you know that it's not based on an is the fact that if that were the case some people would have the performers in the earlier episodes or episodes that they re airing earlier in time presumably would have received less and other words the the defendants explanation is true and the only thing that they cite here that would go against the assertion about financial issues with the employer is that the creator purchased an expensive home in two thousand and twelve two years before we're looking at the company's financial situation and when i lay everybody's house before so i mean this idea that just one person you know to brooklyn  t so you know under demetrius we know not only that but that it's not that they haven't played facts to exclude the possibility of the defendant's explanation but also under demetrius we know that  leave for a match and that they've had plenty of opportunity to to get their case together and opponents rely on smith versus lopez but in that case it was a pro se plaintiffs and it was the first time up here the first amended complaint the essence of it is very similar to the third amending complaint and it's important that even if they had pled sufficiently under  their theory the very first time the union missed filing the grievance for the residuals payments that forever the union can never fix it because there would be that we can bargaining power and all these other claims but if that were the case the for the comics unleashed which the prior case i apologize but under that case the services were rendered in two thousand and seven so the first rearing in two thousand and seven means that the first claim should have been found two thousand and seven union and the first case back in two thousand and eight and in the second case the services were rendered in two thousand and nine first residual payment missed in two thousand as late as two thousand and ten that claim should have been followed against eating in two thousand and ten claim should have been found gives the union we're talking about when the us should have pursued the claims against the employers so that's kind of misapplication well talk about when the claim should have been found against the union  could have been it could have been made clear that these claims were included if there had been the specific bargaining to take care of all of the claims that are alleged to have been lost so  was would not have that argument if there had been the specific negotiation and the specific amount paid for those claims five year it's a good thing it could never happen but it could happen if they were designated as such and settled if i may i was just speaking to the idea of a rematch that it would be that they can't say that it's not a feud that it wouldn't be that they could curate these key facts on remand where are you asserting it would be futile that's that was a point the settlement agreement is there language that supports your argument that the timeliness issue was not a concern well it's it would be both the letter explaining well i guess there's no affirmative language that discusses the timing so you said five eighty eight and five eighty nine was the letter explaining the settlement that's correct in that five six zero five seven ex  if you look at the second paragraph at the bottom of five eighty eight the settlement represents seventy four point six percent of the total calculated to be owed to the producers the union agreed upon that discount based on its judgment about the difficult financial position the producer was in during the pendency of agreements proceeding consideration of the alternatives to settlement such as seeking an arbitration award that could have led to bankruptcy or made it more difficult for producer to tame future funding to so we're looking for so i guess the question i don't know of this is in the record that seventy four point whatever figure was  seventy four percent of some larger figure which might or might not have gone back to the earlier time but do we have anything in the record that tells us which it it's the total calculated to be owed by the producers how was that calculation  from looking where in the record it would affirmatively state that i mean it's not it's not plaid that in fact it represents a smaller portion and they have the  would be and therefore that it's not played such that we know either way is it clear that it is clear that what the big issue is that the union union cause loss to these employees because they were never compensated for they was lost the ability to be compensated for their images that were owed before the union acted so that's why this issue is important because if the union actually reached back to those claims and included them in the settlement then those claims would not be viable on the other hand if the settlement did not reach back and include those claims the cause of action two labor lawyers to have sat on the supreme court with justice goldberg being on the union side in just this brennan on the management side and they wrote that the importance of unions particularly when you're talking about a benefit that is  concerted exercise of the right to conduct of lee bargain which is again this case the residuals and the importance of not putting undue restraints upon the contract in parties and importing other trial type hearing standards or conceptions into this that the union and employers must be free to look at the economic exigencies of what's going on which is what is cited to you as the basis for the discount that it's never sure in timeframe that's that nine nine involving the show comedy t v and there are a couple of keen distinct differences between people and the other one that we talked about earlier the main one being that we think there's a serious issue of jurisdiction in this case the and that being that the notice of appeal was filed well over thirty days satisfied the requirements of a separate document under federal rule of appellate procedure four and in this case it did because it was  a short decision fairly conclusory didn't include a summary decision that included no opinion no analysis it was just a four sentence order that made it very clear that there is a record was separating itself from the litigation this was going to be its final act in the matter in fact the the clerk's record that was entered right after right after the order reminding the action to state court was issued stated in the clerk's record case terminated it could not have been clear after the district court issued the that this case is far to a federal court was concerned was over and the and that satisfies the test of a separate document under rule for a i'm not sure i'm following here because  that i would agree with you if the if the remainder didn't satisfy the test of the first bullet point under for a one seven for sorry for  it talks about when the earlier of these events occurs and our position is that the judgment of the first bullet point applies here the judgment or order is set forth on a separate document because the remainder order in this case satisfies the test of the separate document how well this it was it was a terse order the constituted a final decision and gave no detail the explanation of the court's real  well right except that the rules rule for a seven seven two says the judgment of order is set forth on a separate document in cases like shovels and the other cases we've cited sure most was that was not a really bad case well it also was before the amendment to the rule so it really they were they were writing occasion to reach the question of whether the remainder order in that case needed to meet the thirty day rule in this case a very different case the you know we think that the that really because i don't have much time but whether how i just want to emphasize the point that how far the settlement stretches back is not dispositive on the issue the issue what allegation have you made in your was the third amended complaint of the prejudice that occurred because it wasn't taken account of and in the summer well the further american plane clearly says that the employees are not receive full compensation based on the allowing the statue of limitations to lapse and i would also note that although you know there's hundred percent on which the seventy four percent was calculated goes back to the very beginning including the claims that were otherwise untimely then we would know that they at least consider all unsettled all the clips you're back up hard human is that ok but they won the union one and has great bargaining position were afraid that the company would go into bankruptcy they agreed to settle for seventy five percent so i don't see hell it could have made any material difference or any difference at all in the respond that i'm out of time but the question is the characterization of whether they did in fact receive one hundred percent of the amount that they calculated and at the pleading stage were not required to accept the defendant's assertion that  there certainly additional facts that we could plead if you look you know i'm going outside of the record here but if you look at the way that they calculated the residuals they don't include things that go back to a certain period of time they don't apply the higher after an network code which is the amount that they should have recovered they you know there's other facts outside the record which we certainly could include that would bolster the pleading but we felt it was sufficient and i