discussion on article three standing for public injunctive relief i will discuss why it's not relevant to the issues before the court i will also discuss why then jerry adequately alleges it and alternatively are no bigger concerns in implicated here at all because the general rule in both supreme court and this court is that a voluntary dismissal with which is avoiding piecemeal appeals and also avoiding delay because it creates to go on one step appeal process into a turn into a tuesday of a process with arbitration that that concern does not exist with our one in order compelling arbitration is issued that issuance automatically starts a path down to two step appeal process because if even if you allow arbitration to play out and you and you just proved that the on appeal that the arbitration was improperly order then the subsequent arbitration process is void and you have to go back to the marrieds issues anyways before the district court if any does anything this actually promotes or this context at all because many are discussing because the defendants always have the are the ability to immediately appeal in order denying well in rodrguez site and in our in our brief this court does it was a denial of a motion to compel a motion for classification and the court distinguished it grr on the very ground that positions are very different one there's the requirement that plane of must seek interrupted to repeal if that is a requirement coupled with the requirement that a plane of cannot circumvent a denial of ginsburg's opinion cited a distinguish this case from past the from past supreme court precedent that allowed voluntary just missiles it was saying this is not like ginsburg didn't say that it wasn't that that case no longer good it actually affirmed that he was doing good it just distinguished it because it didn't undermine the twin purposes of finality that's the context in which we have to discuss finality is those twenty purposes the supreme court and the th circuit are very clear that those are the the two main concerns and built over what is the case for controversy here  if you agree to dismiss the that became the claims against rising well i mean it would i think that issue was addressed in controversies london by this court where it held that if they pla we're talking about if the same situation happens with classroom occasion of is granted no one could appeal till the end but if denied the defendant is going to appeal right away so it's the same system here exactly here and they were trying to create  ss they were trying to say look we we're not going to create a situation where only a claim to could appeal a grant but a defiant it can't appeal a denial but that does allowing appeal would hear would make that balance occur without without allowing a voluntary dismissal that balance does not exist because that only the defendant has the ability to appeal under section sixteen of the f a a and i'm sorry i didn't follow then the plaintiffs has no has to wait until the marriages result they don't the defendant has a choice of immediate appeal the only way the plaintive can get that immediate appeal is through a voluntary dismissal on  and ninety and the f a a doesn't say anything about voluntary dismissal create being able to do that it doesn't preclude that it just says you don't have the ability to immediately appeal the only immediate appeal of it is for it's for the defendants in a granting a motion to compel but i mean can i get your argument why stronger doesn't apply i think you mentioned yes so over doesn't apply because in because it doesn't have a poison pill in the stove or the court was concerned served with the fact that well st let me talk to the player because blair is prohibition on class the class program prohibition provision is does not apply or is an enforceable then the entire arbitration agreement doesn't apply we have the same thing here we have a poison pill that says that if the and the supreme court instruct us to follow agreements to according to their terms the f a a and it says that the agreement to arbitrate will not apply if it is an enforceable article three does not fly in arbitration contracts it doesn't make that any it doesn't make that in force whether article three standing exists in this forum has no bearing on whether the article whether the prohibition the nd is this point have article three standing given this job or decision and the answer to that question also is no and the rd question which you never get to because the answers to the st two threshold questions are no sought to voluntarily dismiss under rule forty one and if instead that i guess i'm just i'm a little puzzled by that answer because you're saying that if the plaintiff just said to the court listen i'm not which can be st that one is a twelve not need to be appeal a discretionary in feel and the nd alternative is going to arbitration and feeding it based on the outcome of  in their case i'm sorry yes the only and applying that case here there's no request for an injunction to stop any alleged future harm one need only look at the complaint in this case to see that the only well let me know that out only in the radio and it's nowhere in the charging allegations of the complaint or in any requests for relief in the claim it's also not even referenced in his opening  asking the main and in that situation he's not actually seeking a wimp injunctive relief but i don't know that you even need to go there given the fact that there is no threat of future harm here and there  certainly is no threat of imminent harm the case has been going on for five years he doesn't even allege what the current disclosure is are and in any event unlike the davidson case this disclosure question if quite different in da no allegation that plaintive did virally to purchase either back to the point if there was deprived of standing it can i go back to the article three standing issue real quick is there any downside to adopting  and would agree with that or without my reasoning if you don't have that your in your honor i'd have to think through the question in every possible context but in this context the ability to voluntarily dismiss and then obtain article three standing by doing so is absolutely contrary to the plain language of the f a a and the intended structure here i mean and frankly the honour's are going to be bombarded with these cases of people saying oh no no you should never a granted that motion and the entire point of the f a a will be entirely some for it and the power behalf of it's defined the universe of customers the only people that would potentially have this claim are people who have signed up for the rise and act and then thank you very much because just our due to submitted live to the next case on the calendar which gives united states versus seeing