the parties have agreed upon allocation of time for argument and i want to read to make sure we're all on the same page now first mr clement will have fifteen minutes then mr starr will have jurisdiction to try these california cases not only is that conclusion case dispositive and straightforward it is compelled by this court's decision in re to keep the panel and they are held that it was clear in indisputable error for the trial court to find the lexicon waiver an exercise jurisdiction over trials of out of state cases is as you might imagine a few questions at the mandamus since i was on it but let me let's back up a second on personal jurisdiction in this case which the third bellwethers what's before us now right right you raised personal jurisdiction and the district court just analyzes personal jurisdiction under california contacts which i think and i think everyone agrees that was wrong now it did not rest a finding of personal jurisdiction in this third bellwether case on any finding of waiver this case goes to trial and here we are with the only person jurisdiction ruling in this case being the california contacts it wasn't until the fourth bellwether which is what the mandamus arose out of the district courts you know but there's also a waiver in that that was one solution the mandamus so why is the but why is the waiver even an issue in this case since that wasn't a basis for personal jurisdiction well just cost i mean we'd be happy to take this case on the idea that waiver is wrongly pointed right is we right because we've argued that the california contacts are not the right thing to be looking at and i don't really see my friend on the other side as defending the judgment independent of waiver so i you know he'll have to speak to himself on this but i think they have a theory that if there were a lexicon waiver then at that point the right level of analysis is the california contacts and not the texas context but you're actually you're absolutely right that as to the personal jurisdiction ruling there was no finding of waiver in this case at all so so why couldn't we going to hear from the what can we do said decides and it now has a choice epicurus and to address the constitutional independent the constitutional issue first and it says all right in this case we think police violated the constitution but we don't think it was clearly stand so good reason for them in days panel to do what judge cost recommended that they did but i think all of that is in the realm of discretion and i think once the two get in the majority cases paul van dusen and the last of them the site is eight thirty that's thirty eight ninety three and if you look at that you can get all three of them and what happened in that case is another one of these kind of weird cases where goes up the court says on the first meeting the standard but but so in the context when you go to the second round of it which i think is the context in which you're pointing to the reference where you're suggesting it might be a waiver the first thing to recognize there is the very fact that th we can and so in order to get the best set of cases we won't artificial constrain the universe of cases by saying you know we're not going to wait or like if you thought that some of the time they were still going to be single we would cases by saying  misunderstanding here i don't think that satisfies either and that also things that you know if you're trying to sort of come up with a rule that makes sense for the system as a whole it would be awful to sort of find waiver under these principle remains the same you're supposed to say judge stop we're not part of the here they did not do this and the third you know all these thousands of cases even new from three years you are going to be really getting pre drawn matters before the record of this case shows a sensitivity to our federal system and the analysis of the appropriate legal issues state by state that's precisely what they did in montana it comes with a grace for me to say questions sort of suggest is that he had applied sort of normal sort of litigation conduct personal jurisdiction waiver principles to me and yet because you know my friends on the other side the first big  the question of basic jurisdiction of the court unclear about start from in terms of management of these these cases and i guess that's where we are it certainly well the story of the third bellwether started and so unless you're going to construe those earlier waivers as being sort of global witness in some way which they're not they were for th them that doesn't make sense well but i think in fairness what we've always was the possibility if any of those ninety three hundred been selected for the particular bellwethers that were the consideration first e and then we went back to the record and said what what i have where in this record is there a way over it here's what would happen is if we would have tried to say no waiver for the other three individual trials out of the universe of the one hundred twenty million dollars less than they paid it was so i think the