outside of arbitration to court for injunctive an equitable relief that was not available to plaintive can you focus on the first one for second it is your client in at will employee sense that i guess i would draw to distinction between what an employee knows about and at will an employee knows out well typically is able to be like gold but he doesn't know the scope of what terms would support so what is long  notice is given if the b c i don't understand the generally unilateral modification provisions are sections of the unconscionable then i think we've got another one this morning coming up later but in that well employment agreement i'm having difficulty figuring out why it's substantively unconscionable for the employer to say we're changing the rules and you can either stay or not stay here you say here actually well i understand they aren't the second one is a separate issue but it's in the first one  secondly i guess i would focus on what i said earlier which would be the best argument is from from our point of view is that the terms could vary so significantly that one would have no idea where as in the traditional and they're not sophisticated employment lawyers or lawyers whereas if they know the terms of an outward greenman they generally know what may or may term change but that strikes me as a procedural issue isn't it as opposed to your saying as the agreement you can't kick it keeps getting reform so somebody may not have a fair chance to know what the changes are that strikes me as procedural on contra dhoni rather than substantive so that's what i say that when i've got some questions there's the second one but i you know i think you're clear that notices given for the unilateral modification with respect to the injunctive and the equitable that is simply book boleros right to go outside of the arbitration agreement to court to do things that the employee does not have and there may be a number of reasons and well you would need to get injunctive relief or equitable relief for instance in a disability issue often the primary issue is i just want my workplace changed or modified in something and i cut you off or there are other s had to pay if you were to go it is superior court or there are court arguably you could certainly the defiling fees typically are around four to six hundred or four to five hundred dollars but there are mechanisms to allow us through counsel even to waive those fees if they can show that they themselves are not able to pay whereas i don't believe there is a mechanism for that here there's a record reflect what kind of fever arrow has to pay to go to  n i'm not i'm not entirely certain of that but i know my understanding is that they should have to pick up the arbitration fees so that if there's an arbitration they pick up the arbitrators fees and your client face fifty dollars that is california or sups substantive one country to build a law here it lessens preempted and hasn't at least one california court of appeal decision found a fifty dollar fee ok i'm i'm not aware of it but i certainly would assume that there would be that there's a possibility but i think it's and again if you do go down the rest of the list of your unconscionable and there is also importantly two other things and i can go through each of them the part there is a pocket waiver  isn't i can only answer it by saying this that the district that the lateral maintain there was a part of it waiver that they believe that's how their contract should be interpreted the dist arbitrator concluded that as well and the district court was aware that the arbitrator concluded that there was a part pago with the arbitrator may be right or wrong but i don't see a pago waiver or disagreement and i'm not sure that i don't believe there is specifically but then that would go go back to us arguing whether the arbitrator actually got the award correct if we were you may at the end of the day say that part of the award can't be confirmed because hoops it's outside the ar arbitrator and the district court i thought yeah i don't question actions unfortunately the supreme court says it's not whether there's a waiver you have to have an explicit explicit permission to bring class actions in arbitration but as to  mean i think a pago waiver would be unconscionable for i don't see one i agree that there is no specific language in the agreement that says that you waive claims however the arbitrator concluded there was and the district court affirms that arbitrators conclusion that there is a part of a waiver and under oxford health and we don't really at this point attempt i mean one of our arguments is a come back and argue we should go beyond and choir into what the arbitrator dead but conduct that what that was substantive and cut off our rights they presented thirteen decisions of other arbitrations they presented one that was confidential at the district court concludes that one of them that they also made a misrepresentation ruled without ruled on bases outside of those docking so isn't that sort of the same as somebody trying to introduce inadmissible evidence in an arbitration in new york trader says it's admissible even under the even under the relaxed rules of arbitration i would consider it we don't think so because we think that there was another element to that there was a denial of our right to do a fact to find those opinions as well so it is not just an it is would not be able to discover that why not but if they weren't you said it would cut off your right to them if you had access to them you would have been able to introduce them either would you we either or both sides should not be able introduce or no one in this case no one was allowed to introduce that they did introduce my guest and i would argue that it taints the whole process what what valero what it is is that i think your argument is that they know they have access to the information about what amounts are awarded in these circumstances by our big traders to individual workers and your client doesn't have access to the information that's that makes it not a mutual agreement that is correct and i think we argued that briefly and in our papers and i think what is the fact that it's at will employment have anything to do with whether the arbitration agreement is unconscionable or not  since ninety percent of our bill i mean i think i answered the question as best as i could i don't believe it is in anything to do with that right for i don't there's no law that says that parts that conclusion at all present this as a as a counter ninety percent or ninety nine percent of employees in california are out well if that's the case then if that's tied together then almost it's sort of suggest that all arbitration agreements no what they do and how they change it and how radically they think it might be said no it has nothing to do let me just separate the issues the change that's made might be unconscionable that's a different issue the question is whether the clause that reserves right to make  conditions of employment every day well again i don't believe there's notice here and when you first asked me this question your honor you said it probably everybody i understood you said that before and we're just we're just a different question i thank you i'm not sure if i can add more to either than what i have and with respect to the taint in the process i think if mr wolfe and the employees of alero knew that when they started the when they were presented this arbitration agreement that at some point the valero would effectively do whatever it wanted in presenting things to the court including it information it only had access to that i think i'm not sure if any employee would have signed on or wanted to sign it it also suggests what further actions are they going to take because it seems like the u s supreme court is clearly tending and two words arbitrations but one of our policy arguments would be that when the conduct is like this combined with the various factors that it suggest it's just sucked into the unconscionable these groups unplug it would not in my opinion sign an agreement if they knew that they were is that a condition of employment it is your honor i think it's a take it or leave it they must do this and they were doing this while they were employed so as presently employed employees as well as newly hired employees they couldn't negotiate this very complex document which is different right page one thirty nine of the excerpts of record the rate to modify the arbitration agreement is quite limited you have to give notice i think if you fourteen days notice i believe and it doesn't apply to any claim arbitrations our right not being contended here is well it's unclear but i don't think so i think the players are going first that you never agreed to this at all which i think was not addressed at all right but that was that argument aside for a second this is an attack on your patrician clause nothing entire agreement if you c clause ok and if it's an attack on the arbitration clause do we only focus on the substantive unconscionably ability of the modification provision with respect to that clause i think so but i mean ultimately  right going forward to unilaterally modify a contract again put aside the at will issue is substantively unconscionable i think there is only in the context where you know that there is life in the at will setting as long as i give you notice i can say your pay is ninety nine percent and saying it's about getting a wage tomorrow i'll give you fourteen days notice because you're at one point you can quit tomorrow so there's no kind of you know whether there of employment there will no longer be arbitration you can decide to quit can you address the one sided equitable relief i think steph strikes me is plainly unconscionable you can go to court to get equitable relief but he's got to go to an arbitrator who can give them equitable relief couple things first of all you can't get complete relief you can get a temporary halting of the action which is called for right in the california arbitration and section twelve eighty one point eight b you're allowed to temporarily go and stay something and then if the underlying belief decided in arbitration so he's p faces some imminent danger in the workplace they're going to get injured he's got to go to an arbitrator and but if but i mean i don't think it will anything to do with the underlying dispute here because there's no evidence anybody's ever tried to do that made before ok the issue about the pago waiver i think the arbitration agreement only allowed for individual arbitration that was her finding that the plaintiff cannot come back now and claim oh that was for the court to decide judge or the judge below specifically said he's judicially a stopped because they took a an individual claim correct when your actions are represented by the state right so therefore he retains his right to bring upon your claim outside the action correct i don't know the answer to that and i don't think that's before you unfortunately or a question that's before you is whether the arbitrators award parsed final word which was you only have the right to go for individually can whether that that somehow violates the very narrow view of the federal arbitration act made maybe he goes back to the other two don't argue that i don't they left open the issue of whether in fact they said you could do class arbitration one of their arguments for why it's not preempted is that they thought that unlike a class action and six a paga action could be arbitrated i think the question whether this bothers the state or another whether or not he can go forward and bring a pirate and that's what the arbitrator decides and i believe she's already decided that she must argue she hasn't decided yet that's for the arbitrator if she already has decided and the went before us is effected the decisions she made was wrong or violated public policy and also i mean even today say cab is not even a final decision i mean it's still tomorrow they could be granting him by a preview it's fully briefed and are waiting for that to happen one way or the other and it's still something supreme is there any other questions honors i think one of the instructor things is that valero still maintains that plaintive wolf could only proceed on an individual basis alone he cannot bring a collective paga action he he  saying that your opponent said which was that they wanted you to argue this issue to the judge and you wanted to argue it to the arbitrator having chosen to argue to the arbitrator aren't you stuck at the end of the ar trying to argue that you exceeded her powers from now if she contravenes case law she doesn't see her powers there's a ninth circuit case that cobb that is is actually currently a valid case which at this point  means no but my question is do we or review it now or do or view it later it really you go to when you when there's somebody eventually goes to court to confirm whatever the arbitrators award is why can't you just argue isn't it the award shouldn't include looking at the districts in the district court's right to do that the arbitrator did it did you did find them waived and that was incorrect that she shouldn't have done that is that something we review now or at the end of the arbitration i think in i have half of his paga kelly his individual claim is a party made up of two aspects both the individuals claim and then the claim on behalf of all others  we have clear at that hurdle and i have been authorized by the state to step in to the states use for everyone again alero could have cured that during the thirty three year period and even extended that period out if they wanted to they chose not to so that procedural hurdle has been met with respect to your client's claim though let's assume that he fails in the arbitration to prove that there's been a way you know or a violation which is the underlying sort of claim would you still have standing to bring  has a private right of action for specific state on legal remedies with a specific separate standard of substantial injustice this isn't right but don't you have to show that it isn't isn't there grab them and of any packet claim here the toys and knowing an intentional problem we might not be able to maintain that which is what you're you're you're positing however we could still win a labor code two to six point three violation because substantial injustice might have been found the because this is right the supreme court had said it would was going to hear this issue and make a decision and we had asked the district court to delay its ruling and actually to certify this for to allow us because we knew that that wasn't an issue and so i  procedural question and would it make more sense for us then to remand to the district court to consider reconsider its confirmation in light of those cases i think that because there's a strange procedural history of this case which i current posture to cop that back to the real issue here and that your client mr wolf wears his claim for wage an hour violations you mean the substantive claims he's raised yes he is alleging that neil and russ period violations the plaintiff would have no reason to go to court that's simply not true there is a number of for instance asking the court friend john to believe to order that meal and rest breaks are provided to order payment time in the dawning and doffing case which is very similar to the tyson foods case that's being considered by the supreme court so there is that on top of it being a very dangerous work environment and a number of safety related issues he would have concern over and