way or what if we disorder decide on the law exception do we still need to reach the sweet outraged at the so if we decide this case in either of those two ways we don't reach this issue and it's only if we decided on the highly employee exemption to imply that the person must be on receiving compensation over hundred thousand dollars be paid on the salary basis under six up to the regulations  fact he was prohibited from working at other companies during his employment yet another that applied during his important and independent contractors home or of being an independent contractor is you can go to work for other people and your other work has to be outside the competitor you could have those restrictions and still be an independent contractor and i'm not saying that by itself means he's an employee i'm saying with all of the factors primarily  addressed but when you get back on your rebuttal can you please explicitly address five forty one six zero four b and the court's conclusion you know as a matter of law that even though he reduced his own coffin sation a thousand dollars was guaranteed if he showed up for work for a day if he showed up for work and performed upon the great pub that was the crux of the district court's holding and at once if you could address why that's an incorrect factual determination or whatever your argument against it is thank you that requirement at the end with an exempt employees our names may be computed on an hourly or a daily or shift basis without losing the exact steps exemption or violating the salary basis how do those two provisions work together licenses are technically valid tactic that's he is not eligible to practice law there the court therefore concludes the plaintiff did not hold a valid license permitting the practice of laws if simpson requires so the court conclude city has a valid was doing work and is it did in house counsel for you to practice of law have to maintain licenses and there's texas and louisiana don't think that's ours have to be a licensed lawyer to practice law whether it's states very clear that this position that unfairly restated that should be read very narrowly for employers is no longer valid and she says it should be given a fair did you ask the district court to reconsider its decision on the costs we did not did you ever say we should be entitled to costs on this than normal standard and that the specific rule in f l a say that says plaintiffs by name does not trump the normal standard did you argue that over to the district in order to call then it would have to be plainer wouldn't it you would have to be a plain ever for you to win on that here and it's not plain because we've never had a case have we we've never who's never been so how can you possibly win on your not well you can if you're not eligible for it under the specific statute and the fifth circuit has never reached the question of eligibility under the statute has it only the eighth circuit has been cited to us an training helped but he does not act is not actually performing legal work and that's what the letter what's confusing about that has to do everyone i'm sure is why does this guy then say at the end of this w officer comes from the regulations yes yes all of the all of the elements for all of those exemptions are defined in the regulations that the statute only says