here is number eighteen for fourteen cortez for says twenty twenty first century fox america i have just an initial question we've met before yes in in the past sometimes you use the name sanchez door time sometimes just sanchez which do you prefer sanchez dr yes yes thank you  as i was going to these papers last night i came across page twenty eight of the police paper and quite frankly i was i was a bit confused and i wanted i was hoping the court could explain to me where i went wrong it says here that all the plaintive does not contest the district court's decision he now suggest an alternative legal theory not present to the district court that defendants induced holder to breach the hold a settlement agreement my understanding from my from my complaint is that that was what i was trying to get get across from from the very beginning from the you brought a number of different causes of actions yes and it looked from my reading of your brief as if you were pursuing on appeal you were knowledge that the district court was to do correct dismissed most of them and the one that you were pursuing was causes of action at the appeal stage your read we're limited to what was before the district court and so we're focusing i think on the fraud or fraudulent inducement claim that you developed or addressed in your in your brief so maybe you could focus on that right ok it was also a little unclear to me exactly what you were aiming at and what your argument was ok well my argument is that is that from the very beginning  this was a planned fraud where they were going to the goal here was to scapegoat my client into signing just dismissed that saying you had not made a particular enough allegations to satisfy the federal rules that you had pointed to particular misrepresentations or made particular times in order to satisfy the rule could you point us now to allegations in the complaint was very carefully planned to avoid appearing to avoid crossing the line where the law says this is fraud where the law is very it is a little bit  the law and fraud as it seems to exist you know with the exception of cases i've referenced in my in my my papers were kind of they look at the at the big picture and then from trying to say to look at the larger picture you know if you misrepresentation made by defendants and alleged in your complaint are they pursued him to enter into the remit agreement i mean the idea with the agreement was we all signed the agreement and no one said anything and that's not what happened immediately after they signed the agreement about two three weeks later it comes out in the new york times in my client's the one in conjunction with i mean i was i was there i mean what happened is that these these you know you're these the lawyers reach out to my client my client reach out to me we we go meet with paul weiss and they say well you know where you know they ask him to to if he can assist them in the in an in their investigation with regarding mr holder's allegations any you know we decide probably it's better not to because of the fact he already signed agreements saying you're not supposed to you know you're going to sign an agreement in the past saying not to disparage so we don't want to you know cross that line and so we said no into there was it was kind of a threat initially to you know say well you know they said you did science agreement if you know  and and the all that agreement didn't say anything about him helping them out in any case against ms holder but there was a threat as far as i'm sitting there and i felt it was a threat to you know withhold the payments and so we just when i mention i bring it up and i  point he's being pursued that's right there that's the fraud i mean it's a fraud in the act of pursuing someone say hey you're going to sign this agreement you know we sign this agreement and and you know everyone goes their own way and that was the i can't  be honest i can't tell you the exact same data words that someone's the other they said they were told to me that's why i don't i don't sit and put pen to paper but i know when someone's coming to me saying you know reaching out to me about signing this this  i present this to the court i bring it to the court i explain to you know what happened i explain that my my view is that you know the definition of a fraud is really to it is  not equipped to deal with the realities of the twenty first century and just the fact would you redefine how would you like back up would you like us to do well i guess you know i would say fraud is a lot like what remember the name of the person who came out of this case but he said it's like pornography you know when you see it and so that's what i would say fraud is something you know you know when you see it and it's something that you know i mean if i went to the press and said what article described allegations made by camera holder a former fox news contributor about a sexual assault that she alleged took place by mr cortez in mr cortez's office mr cortez has not sued the new york times or ms holder for defamation instead he has sued the apple lees twenty first century fox and twenty first century fox america on legal theories that the district court correctly held defy comprehension all address only the fraud claim because that's the only one that has been properly preserved on appeal and the issue i would like to focus on detrimental reliance at the time that mr court has was approached by the paul weiss law firm and now asked if he would sign the holder settlement agreement in which he would agree not to disparage ms holder he had already signed an agreement his very own severance agreement in which he had agreed that he disparage fox or its present or former employees is that agreement properly before us it was it referred to in the complaint in any way yes your honor it is referred to the complaint and in multiple ways through the references to the severance payments that mr cortez received and through the reference to the existing contractual obligations of non disparagement that mr cortez had of those or specifically in paragraphs one hundred twelve and one hundred thirteen of the complaint so it's not directly explicitly named  so when the new york times article appeared after the execution of the settlement of the holder's settlement agreement mr cortez's hands were no more tied than they would have been if paul weiss had never approached him in the first place he had the same non disparagement obligation and so his ability or inability to speak was no more constrained so for that that reason there is absolutely no detrimental reliance because the only harm that mr cortez alleges is the harm that resulted from the publication of his name as the alleged sexual assault or tamar holder there is no challenge mister cortez's brief does not even address the detrimental reliance issue which is an independent ground for firming the district court's dismissal of the fraud claim with respect to whether there was an  misrepresentation judge suite correctly held that there was no actual misrepresentation stated on the complaint there are representation attributed to the paul weis attorneys regarding the scope of ms holder's release of mr cortez of those representations are conceded to be true so therefore cannot be   so i if i could just take a second to address that the tortious interference claim as stated in the complaint and as we understood it when we nationally brief claims that the defendants twenty first century fox america and twenty first century fox interfered with each other and under the holder settlement agreement what we had believed to be a new argument on appeal was that the defendant's head interfered with holders and under that agreement and even construed in that way  complaint does not state a cause of action for tortious interference precisely because there is no allegation that ms holder disparaged mr cortez af executing settlement agreement  conversations with emily steel the new york times reporter are all conceded to have been before the holder settlement agreement was executed moreover an additional defect in the cause of action which is that nothing that the defendant did is alleged to have holder to speak to the new times the only action attributed to the defendants is the publication of a joint statement with that joint statement did not identify mr cortez by name reference and enter into this complaint and the reason being is that i'm concerned that that defendant will well sue my client to try to recuperate the severance payments and i'm going to involved in more litigation that's my concern you disagree with her it's reference but i don't believe that it's it's i don't think it's the substance of it is referenced in numerous places including the payment and other obligations as a preexisting   just kind of see what might might be occurring down the line and but another thing is i want to mention the this by him signing this contract with holder i mean it was it was totally different in the other contract in terms of the other contract because you know it would have mentioned the new york times that francisco cortez was you know left you know this is his company and he signed some sort of some sort of contract but it had nothing to do with holder this the contract when he signed with holder so it's something that the new york times could use and and the people in you know comments losing common sense people in the world will say well you know he signed this with holder so you he probably did what is what you know what they're talking