morning your honor ronald foreman for david mohsni as the court knows there's two matters here so i don't know whether you want to have argument both with the same time or go one of the time and then save the second appeal probably better address that the thing you want to address finding that all the matters that have been litigated in denmark and then secondly that what i believe to be the case of first impression for this court is the conduct that took place after the term of the agreement get the contractual arguments under the ada see agreement correctly can be litigated in denmark or the questions remain here or the court could say the following you were wrong in sending the case to denmark it's entire that is the sub issue that despises the term an issue of the of the issue the court just asked me about question for this court i would urge them to read both and then we're going to reconcile this issue that you've asked what is the language that makes it a venue selection that precludes a filing in some jurisdiction other than that but that would be something the parties contemplated at the time of making of the contract certainly the parties that make a contract with the idea that oh there's going to be tort conduct and by the way the risk that occurs after the terminus of the term get swallowed judge has ordered that everything be stayed in that case pending the resolution of the judgment in denmark now the case has been crying denmark we were under the impression the danish court that we would have had the decision already danish court has that's the position i think that piecemeal that out though because they didn't appear didn't win the case they want to motion you think about it they changed venue from place a to place being that's a victory for them but if there's a valid motion to compel arbitration a motion for non state or a motion for summary judgment those you could have multiple winners we're not deciding all the problems between you and your own son and then your opponent prevail in this case if the opinion of the order granting defense motion to dismiss extra from the record ten n cause number one was this was not this was a choice of law number two it doesn't apply to the tort claims so again he didn't focus on the mandatory versus permissive the getting back to that opinion the court found that it is a valid as objectively manifested in the contract it is not a valid venue selection because your are the problem how do we get around those figures of yours i get around it number one it's not an issue don't fight on applies that's application of the form selection caused which it in which you're bound by an abuse of discretion standard and again in that same argument he does not talk about the hundred as west in case i also point out your honour's that even if you had raised that about whether you know what policy you guys form selection causes or what the benefits of it how it's necessary for international commerce and how you supposed you're supposed to enforce them unless they're unreasonable the very end they use the word mandatory and that's of exclusivities as to that i think that your honor i would submit that that is not exactly what they say they say you look at whether it's from mr versus mandatory and there are various factors they look at but mandatory in the sense of venue selection sterling forest case which we cite in our papers and i circuit case it's fines mandatory a phrased where the parties agree a green the jurisdiction shall be in california that is identical to the statement that the parties in this case accept the jurisdiction  doesn't have to be the exact same language they just found them in any fair and it doesn't have to be specifically the county in virginia like the sort of the record stand at her interpretation of the contract as a matter of law which is de novo but again the only issues on appeal are the application of the form selection clause and that is abuse of discretion and i know we can't apply it saying that's not in his brief that's not an issue on appeal and there's no where does he cite these cases and it's only in the application to the to work claims which is a totally different issue that's whether the issue of pages eleven through thirteen it whether the form selection clause which has already been found to be valid by that language is incorporated into the fifth cause of action by reference and also whether the fifth cause of action is actionable still requires you to look at the contract look at the agency agreement the relationship between the part he's to determine whether the contract is unlawful as far as i know in california the act of contacting somebody interfere with a contract by itself is not improper you have to have some forces conduct at the base of the contact whether the underlying conduct is tortious depends on whether distributor for a foreign company who got it into a dispute and he and there was allegations that that foreign company was basically disregarding the agency agreement or disregarding the distribution the distribution the district court determined that we prevailed because we succeeded in dismissing the case we cited expensive authority and our opposition brief in that matter on appeal one six to eight seven martin mr foreman referred to numerous occasions that was pending shortly after he filed his action here when we went to court on a motion to dismiss the danish action was pending and if it was somehow determin outcome of this case and determine if it of who prevailed then mr foreman mr mohsni should have made the court aware of it they could have made a motion to stay he could have made they could have brought that case the attention of the court they didn't they elected to  section seven hundred seventeen talks about dismissal that's the california attorney statute it says it talks about prevailing party and one of the standards is if you succeed in getting the case reasonable i think fact what she really says is that at first glance the fees appear unreasonable given the amount but then when she looked at the actual bills in her second opinion she said they were reasonable and she listed a number of factors including the fact that the rates were in amount of the fees and the judge listed her reasons and that is valid and that gives us the right to the fees and she has discretion to determine the reason one of the fees the standard is abuse of discretion just records her of course if  think you're correct but in the are you saying is we've got a different agreement and that modified paragraph twenty two that's not an argument where the paragraph twenty two is mandatory or permits or if you're actually correct but in the argument that was made  talk about whether paragraph twenty two is valid or not under orders the other issue that that was talked about was the issue of the state court clashed they are those state court court  state court tort claims exist whether there was an agency agreement or not if david mohsni was doing business with his agent jack kaplan and the third party came along that had no agreement with mr mostyn and