good morning the appeal before us is basically there are four concerns or arguments the first is whether the district court erred when they dismissed the case using the twelve b at that point if the court were to bring in additional evidence for it to defend them the plaintiff should have been allowed to bring in extra evidence as well what evidence what evidence specifically do you object to the district court considering i thought the district court considered the g m pension plan they had to pick or did you review the g m pension plan from two thousand and seven however our plane and our clients had already been dismissed and ops and out of the workforce in two thousand and six that did not apply to our finance so you're saying there's a fact question because my understanding was that the g m position was that your clients did not retire until two thousand and seven so the clients were retired by two thousand and six and they were out of the workforce at that time and you say they were retired are you saying somebody was under the s a p they were quote retired unquote i'm sorry your honor i am not clear in your question i'm i'm unsure what you mean by retired whether retired means when someone has met the thirty year requirement or whether retired means me they took their retirement meaning they were no longer eligible to work for g m under the f a p plan as they understood it at the time well maybe maybe we should go back to first principles in this case what do you contend from osh to g m and g m s a pine i apologize if i am not understanding this case so feel free to tell me that but i thought the essay p came in under delphi and the s a p is just a very limited document and i'm having trouble provided besides communications between delphi and g m and telling them about the transfer of the assets and their benefits they had never been presented eighty summary plan a complete document other than the one that was attached to the complaint that was all that the plaintiff had been presented by any of the three entity so how could that document summary document that they were given where oh where am i wrong for their service years between all of the employers that they had work for eight and be plain pissed right i cared under the understanding and some of them at a very young age that they would have enough years in service at all of these to equal the thirty years for retirement many of them would never ever retired had they had thought that the years would later be taken away from th to continue to flow through to delphi and then subsequently to g m let me ask you this now that they are retiring are they receiving any payments from bhatia this time reading them together and direct the plan ok so with the two documents together it let me ask you this if the march twentieth two thousand and nine a letter which says that your pynchon benefits will not be reduced letter from jean am did not exist who are there other documents you could rely on to show the larger pension figure as the contract you think here as the appropriate thing here or is it just the yeah we do have statements from delphi that that did show the larger amount as well and of course we never got into we were never a lot of discovery and to add additional information to the court to show that there were is to have this case go to either go to a summary judgment so that you can get discovery or if there's a dispute a flag to go and to be tried is that right that i think also i'm sorry you exhausted the g m plan requirements the complaint was referenced that they had attempted to contact g m and g m and told them to contact other again we less i know it may have hurt a little but approximately i would bet ten years that they were with bosh before they moved on and they're getting nothing from and never have gotten anything from bosh in the way of a pension is that right and it's correct your honor now is they are potential does bosh if they're still in business have potential liability to someone either the plaintiffs or if g is required to pay more than its pension plan to g m as reimbursement is there no potential liability there but between appears would be the case of they have to pay the full amount they may have a right of action against bosh is that what you're saying yes your hon i believe that the full fifteen minutes have been used now as any other judge have a question ok judge no i think then that it's time to hear what they would be in respect of pensions because there's nothing in that document pensions or something saying there would be entitlement to a certain type of pension or that pension would be computed i think the only place that you can look here for at the general motors pension plan that is being administered by the defendant general motors l l c in this case if in fact the g m plan that's attached that exhibit j to our motion for judgment on the plat where we don't know about that because the case was disposed of without any discovery so the record is absent all that don't if they pleadings themselves under the twelve standard do not state a claim against general motors l l c the only remaining defendant in this case if you look at what was submitted in three different considered interests a plan where you one could say well is it into management to the u s plan or is it a gloss on the arista plan or its explanation that for these types of people who have twenty seven to thirty years they're period s but there's three b double lie which says employees will retire without additional incentives when they first accrue thirty years of credit service under the provisions of the delphi hourly rate employees pension plan is that about pensions is arising isn't it i mean it has provisions in there that like the ones that we're just talking about that provide the context are part of the genome subsequently took over delphi wouldn't this these obligations go with the go with g m now to the extent that delphi had made these plaintiffs have concluded from the marge twenty two thousand and nine letter from the g m benefits and services center that g m meant what it said when it said as a consequence of the pension asset transfer beginning april one two thousand and nine your delphi pension benefit and your g m pension benefit will be combined and will be paid in its entirety by the g m plan the total gross amount of your pension benefit will not change and as i understand it at that time the total gross amount of the benefit was set at the whatever the figure is to two thousand eight hundred dollars a month and not a lesser amount why would not that  that's a later dated letter from july of two thousand and ten that's when g m in communicating with flight of steps and i said you know when we got those those monies from from delphi for the pension credit we didn't get the extra money for th with that account so do you say then that robert buchanan should be entitled to rely upon this letter and that his pension would not change but only h have thank you we do not have any further questions and and i believe that this fix so has used her entire time i'm so the argument will conclude and we will reach a decision in due force