case number nineteen dash four thousand and seventy four andrea drake at all versus deploy orthopedics ink at all in case number nineteen dash the seventy five in re s r hip implant products liability improper or below which bank needed a proper arbitration proceeding and refused to confirm that property in and reminded the proceedings or our tradition for tribunals which had previously determine win we have to determine which of these these the question whether the st question whether we prevailed under the master settlement agreement or under the ira and i'll talk about this detail later i think the answer is b prevail under both of those based on the special masters but cryptic i mean it just simply says hey there's another james arbitration going to she's that company or as well she then for that reason apparently she says there's no but my question is not withstanding what we said about these rules or some version of them in another case to do we have the thing that's incorporated here these aaa rules that we have that in our records somewhere so that i g a the original texas arbitration was pending and that if they if they had jurisdiction there there couldn't be jurisdiction to place so how does version of his overall settlement has remained in trust for just over five years now while this attorney few dispute is pending mr johnson will serve his cake and eat it too what he wants to do is you wants to have the provisions in the safety and the discovery of the complex malted dysart litigation without availing themselves to the arbitration proceedings within the n b l we know that that's the case because he not only the representation agreement the v a r it was signed before the n b l proceedings johnson himself filed into the m d l on behalf of mr drake thereby valium so to the protections of the of the a selfie disputes are going to be handled and it's important to remember that that not only applies to the plaintive and the client as well as the defendant but also interested parties and that's well defined in the master settlement agreement mean i have a problem with that though in the sense that johnson isn't seeking any of the recovery under the master settlement agreement and the recovery he a full fee his full attorney feet with respect to this issue because under texas law he's entitled to a full fee if there's a breach of contract with without d so i think it might be able to back up a little bit and explain some of the background facts with respect to this and if i don't if i don't answer your question i'm trying to get to the best that i can but given the facts of the case i i want to get there is quickly as possible so there was there was an arbitration that occurred in texas on two points with respect to that it was under heavy objection with respect to jurisdiction the entire time and then also with number was referred to me that as the special master she was unaware that it was already pending as an arbitration before judge ashworth and then when she also milly decided to  i do not have jurisdiction over the matter and you're by dismissed and then she dismissed the jambs reference number and she also withdrew scheduling order number one there are two points that i think are important in their st special ministry he made no reference with respect to the and do you know the northern district of ohio or the master settlement agreement he merely said that i do not have jurisdiction over this result and it down to the arbitration already going on in a arbitration provision generally with respect to what i'm what i'm noting there's more of a stylistic preference some than it is any sort of a ruling with respect to her age if she were to respect to her individually because she then says i concur i do not have jurisdiction over this matter and dismissed and what she dismissed was the jambs case number and then she said scheduling order one in this matter is  i individually but i but i believe it's there and i believe that or or speaks to that with respect to a matter of comedy so and i also think if you want to page twelve an appellate brief this point is largely highlight that because that's exactly what the crux of their argument is is based on implicit there and they're asking you to imply that special master jani said there was no personal  jurisdiction no jurisdiction in this matter with respect to the m d l and that texas law applied and that's simply not something she did that's not something she explicitly noted merely being knowledge that orders and the implications flowing from them d so with respect to special master jani supporters by seeking to clarify that point st i get with respect to the remaining arguments on one point i want to make before diving in to district court after they've actually vacated the arbitration so i don't know speaking for myself and maybe picking up or just guy left off i'm more interested in your response to the arguments about  whether mr johnson somehow bound him self to the n s a i mean he's i mean it's unusual case he's got an agreement the attorney representation agreement he has an arbitration award in hand which under the f a a you mean you usually when it could be vacated if good arbitrator exceeded his jurisdiction and that's kind of what we're talking about but how is it that he ends up getting bound by a different agreement to which he was never a signatory namely b m s a oh that's interesting question and yeah there are there are some interesting facts in this case i think it's important to remember the time line year so the that's not a chronology but a legal analysis about how these facts as a legal matter then make this guy bound by an agreement that he didn't sign i'm not being skeptical i just would be helpful have an explanation that would largely that would be the explanation with respect to the master settlement agreement and the n d l these are complex litigation so ultimately when you avail yourself to the protections of the m t l you can't pick and choose what parts apply to two to the litigation moving forward with respect to your claim to for client which you do as you choose to be a part of that litigation and then from there  many many of the issues not all of the issues obviously but many of the issues are dealt with under the framework of the m t o so at that point that is the point at which the air raid as judge illmatic laid out was amended so case started with a k but you need a meeting of minds to modify a contract last time i checked and consideration and scratching my head about how there was a meeting in the mines here and the guy gets far he says i've got a claim against i reserve a claim against whatever this person gets out of this proceeding he goes off and three years later there's a and i say and hauser meeting of the minds that johnson is swapping out then deal that he represented mr drink at the time that he submitted this at the time that he submitted to that complaint so the it's difficult to separate the two as far as representation  with respect to that i understand the argument with respect to meaning in the minds and i can't you know it's difficult to point to a specific instance but johnson represented to the m d l that he represented drake and filed into the modification and i'd instead point to the authority of the i've i've mentioned as well as judge you know mix order which discusses texas law on contemplates i see my time difficult to point to a specific media mindstate situation i think i mean usually usually when there is one you can point to it you know but have you guys trying to mediate this case multiple times you're effect that there is no jurisdiction in this n d l and under the n s a that's and that's really what you're saying judge helmick was bound to say and i mean that's just that it doesn't say that i'm not saying the judge hell is bound to say that i'm saying judge held it is found to respect specialness or young because that's what i'm saying and successor mr giuliani special master jani had close to nothing in support of her conclusion that she i had i don't have jurisdiction my point is judge helmick had to make a decision there is zero analysis of that question in this war so i think you're both you both have a lot to worry about on this issue is what i'm suggesting and in your case it's not none of your but you know you're you're reading an awful lot into it too i'm just telling you what i'm telling you is both you guys have a lot of risk when your guy got sixty two percent of the award now your honor he got thirty five percent remainder was attorneys which he was untied receive under texas law and that's i well ok but you know i mean just speaking for myself it would seem like this is about money he's got a sixty two percent title meant it would