in order to place there was a side joint side inspection i don't mean i don't want to you to lose the time that you have but if i understand you want to challenge the chinese was rolling and you want to jump through all sixty really well for me open rowing hutchinson smith cases in the circuit is that you can't be a prevailing pouri if all the court orders he defended do is to comply with something the defendant has agreed to do volunt said it is a patient they represent the they would do particular things to achieve compliance with the right and the court order did nothing more than tell them the day should do what they've already think but like is asking about is not what did they do in response what did the court order them to do and why does what the court order them to do constitute the kind of judicial and primary that would make them a prevailing merits being that they're not in compliance with you i mean that you have to be able to show the court did indeed with the merits make some judgment about the merits of the case where there is no evidence that the court ever did that i mean for example in our how to sing cares but i think you're trying to suggest this sort of analogous a situation where there was a settlement agreement somehow incorporate some kind of settlement that's because it must have been doing some independent evaluation of whether it complied with the idea is that the idea yes the substance of the order regardless of whether it was the night or not the substance  the we'll make it you think it's the future tense notion of we'll make it is is a way of reading it to say it wasn't conclude it wasn't prepared to conclude absent that experts statement to such and such is necessary to compliance that he's ordering the have to be done rather than independent terminations of what's necessary in response to that order what would have happened if the defen would have triggered contempt or does that mean what do you think would have been a consequence of not complying with that order i will say that the is th heart it was as a result of that order regarding the matter its merits of the action thank you here is whether or not there is a prevailing party because of the voluntary commitment and compliance of a business owner that in fact that's what happened so if we try to understand the report of this case or the background procedure or background to most point out  with the court then right after the judgment was issued on february twenty two thousand and thirteen which is docket eighty right there the defendant afterwards in their motion requesting formally the dismissal without prejudice the plaintiffs are you know they were fully satisfied with our commitment voluntary there is no standard whatsoever defined clearly neither by the st year quit or to supreme court of the united states regarding as to what should be drawn to comply with the a we did right after we felt he you said that he was income had satisfied with our proposed reconstruction then he filed a thirty two thousand dollars attorney fees memorandum we cost so what's what's the real motive of filing these kind of complaints and to injury after we finally comply with this the court did in fact recognize we are order that we in fact comply and so you you feel your briefing with  the allegations about the way in which opposing counsel is pursuing these claims there are a lot of claims like this as you point out  really hurts and out what really hurts that i it was fairly solid and lessons whether you're whether they're prevailing party and as to that the question is simply whether you were how much the judge did with respect to the merits of whether there was a violation of the idea in the in the st circuit morag me a case if i understand that case it's it goes to trial you know me voluntarily dismiss the what kind of the grio success is we are talking we are talking about because it's not even explained in the motions is not even if it was not even ask through a rule sixty motion or to alter judgment meses decision of january twenty three where the judge says defendants are hereby ordered to submit evidence of the completion of the changes to the design of the business establishment it would make it fully compliant with all applicable standards and guidelines under the idea of a i gather he would read that to say that there is now on a court impose requirement that your client meet the standards of the a b a suggesting that absent these remedial steps that it said it would that it said it would take it was not in compliance with the idea is is that not a is not a lot of fear and he would that he would then say that represents a judgment on the merits and his claim that your client was not in compliance with so we were never here these puting whether or not we have to comply with the law we sent in a motion for summary judgment and we stated clearly that we were going to be doing it reconstruction plan but at th we were going to know that but as a legal matter what did you think you were bound to do in consequence of the water apart from what you were going to do anyway i was going to fi