the court remanded this case back to the district court for trial previously when i was here the court granted our motion for summary judgment on the like a pending party jurisdiction and they before trial and the reason i bring this up because i recall quite clearly judge kozinski saying that as soon as the sexual the i'm sorry the sex the federal issues were resolved the court seemed to lose interest and dispose of the case on summary judgment and this is the based on that argument i just remember that conversation very well in the statement by justin's it's because on the morning of trial the judge decided to dispose of this case again on stormy judgment after all if you have nothing to do with that and the judge black and i had nothing do with your glock leaving a few he granted that motion when the jury is waiting we're waiting to pick a jury on the first day of trial and i also bring that up because jurisdiction i believe and we report of course went into th nevada statute three three nine point zero three five notice required by party not having direct contractual relationship with the general contractor kind of the trust fund doesn't have any direct relationship with views or with richardson  g it does not have a direct relationship with the surety for richardson it did with the subcontractor peripherally because of course it was to be paid the fringe benefit for your contractor or the surety or the surety so they don't come out they don't come out from under the notice requirements that zapp way but they do they have my question is do they have a direct contractual relationship with the sub contractor because the agreement signed with the subcontractor required some contractor to do certain things towards payment of the fringe benefits and also allowed the trust fund to be able to inspect books for example to perform inspect projects so they did have a relationship but it still does not allow them to get beyond the requirements of the thirty day notice first providing services or materials and then the ninety day proof requirement after the last day of providing materials or service or late and so it does not they do not they cannot escape the notice requirements in the three three nine zero three five so without having any some type of relationship or some contract or because the three three nine says to make a proper bond claim against the general contractor and the bar and present secured by the general contractor you have to provide those notices because you did not have a direct relationship with the general and as a regard and it says a general contractor or surety would have no knowledge of the trust fund or a material supplier or a labor supplier that was not in direct contract relationship with the general or the surety unless the military crimes are fulfilled r nine and then a general contractor is not responsible for a trust fund and if it's beyond the fringe benefits because of this question  statutory underpinning another nevada law or there is nothing in nevada law that educates us about what the statutory interpretation perhaps nothing else actions would be and factor in nevada as the american will believe the more minute because it's something i want to touch on that i think is very important the the only case where two nevada cases the summary case in a legal case that i believe are improperly relied upon by the by the respondents in that case both the general contractors had actually entered into labor agreements that's what happened in the rico case and that's what happened in some they both entered into a labor agreement where they were contract related to or have probably a contract with the trust fund and in those cases the court federal district court awarded attorney's fees and damages but in this case richardson paid them paid all of the trust fund would have a valid argument but where there is no contract requiring a general contractor to do that because there is no relationship here between the trust funds and richardson or trust funds in hartford there is no right to award liquidated damages penalties  over i appreciate thank you very much the trust funds require payment of attorney fees liquidated damages interest and a risk has the mayor requirement and desert valley the delinquent union subcontractor is unquestionably responsible for all those under the labor agreement and direct i so you're referring to caught it basically is the supreme court case that there reaches into trust funds relationships so the speak and holds the the bo responsible in this situation which was a case involving the contract that if you look at call it which is premised upon the fact that the the trustee stay in the same shoes as the employees of the liability their right in their own name to collect those amounts as pointed out pointed out by the mountbatten case southern district of new york cited in the briefs the miller act does cover some entities that have no contracts with the general or the stuff and a the against the richardson abide by the first against the richardson or the bonding company that's correct those are not appeal so all we're looking at now as i understand it is what use the trustee rights are against the surety under nevada law well right that's interesting because this was two cases one of them had a respect claims against hartford and richard dismissed years ago and that's the case in which the notice of appeal was filed another case which was an arrest a case against desert valley with supplement of jurisdiction previously upheld by this court on the state law claims and that case proceeded to judgment but has never been a feel that's my first point in this case is that we've appealed the wrong case here and there's no jurisdiction to hear the appeal we're talking about the merits so i assume when there's interest in talking about the merits but in this case we succeeded in reaching a state or supplemental touristic and provisos you were coming up to us to say under nevada law you didn't have to give notice because you don't fit within the statutory terms well that's correct under it and that you the standing to come in under nevada law or just standing in the shoes of the true mark true but no longer necessary post arrest that were subsequently cases have recognized that part of the card a decision isn't necessary for an arrest a trust claim against a country says that is bound to the terms of the trust agreement and the trust agreements are all bound by arrest and the trust agreements always cite liquidated damages in the interests of the trust agreements in the record i believe they are trying to think what they were attached to i you no contract would you agree that this is a very unfair result of the bond the company has stuck with this without having any opportunity at all do you know have the notice provisions apply in terms of the relationship between the u never go to the bonding company it always goes to the general the general supervising its job site and under sixty one fifty is responsible to answer for the debts of the stuff that i understand with his the regulations should be here but you have a disconnect when it comes to the employee way but that's the only possible contract you'd have to point to the labor agreement force some other document that could be a direct contract between us is there a dress i think that would be in a legal agreement you couldn't have it any service that is the regulations should be between the union employees and the  liability it's flatly illegal and it doesn't constitute a defense to any arista liability these are via the employee no matter what the employee is paid or received ok so your argument is that you are not a third party beneficiary you have your own direct arista rights we are both we have third party and this is just a matter of that the case of the state rosie's transfer says that we are a favored third party beneficiary under the law we are not in direct contract with the employees because we're not parties to the labor agreement as a matter of public policy we've been given this favorite position because pensions are more important and fertilizer and grass and the other things richardson did pick up for their delinquent steps it's just a policy decision that puts us in this position  something their general definitely doesn't know but the trust doesn't know that's why it makes sense well thank you no penalty no liquidated damages go on to the next one that we've of course gone through this go into the next one the rico case and some cases there's a direct relationship between a general contractor in the trust fund and both cases there is