first of all it's found in the central part of its opinion that mr tallies independent claims against the defendants that were supposedly barred by the bar order were in fact independent claims that were not the skies in denver the contribution claims specifically said we have to defer to a federal court bar order which may or which even though it's on appeal or may be overturned is binding upon us now and if it's overturned the court's pacifically left open the issue of really addressing these claims that  not dismissed the case without prejudice in fact against one of the defendants against whom it borrowed or had not yet been issued valuation counselors and us trust the court affirmed our appeal and reinstated our case the only reason the court dismissed we like to get these ahead of time doesn't do you very much good to come in a boss fight it out by accident for the evening before we haven't had time to really digest this well that and i apologize the reason i don't think i'll walk paragraph but secondly we have never thought i think we argued in the brief that it was not the purview of the district court to make a finding of whether they're independent claims the court is empowered by statute which is the first thing they tell you in law school you know the start of the statu the statute says you bar future claims for contributions that's all the district court had before it mr talley was not a party before the court at the time of the borrower's his claims were not pending there this court made no the district court excuse me made no determination as to whether bar the state court mr talley state court claims were independent or contribution or indemnity claims or not and in fact the case was that came up in the research indicated that it was not the purview of a district basis to find that they were not masquerading and that was not the purview of the court on a bar order hearing the bar or hearing used the term whether defendants who are settling with plaintiffs in a federal court class action case have paid their fair share s they get a bargain for future contribution claims they don't get a bar against any old tort claim that's out there because to do so would allow somebody to say i want to bar all related claims and may not even have to tell people the th court claims that they they have the right to bring them in and say your honor these are disguised contribution claims they never did that even in the state court appeal they never did that all they did was show the court the bar order that says mr  claims nobody has made any analysis except in the case of valuation counselors and us trust whether mr tallies claims are independent non contribution claims and when the court made that determination did in fact found that they were not contributions are going to the claims but those were never before this court the district court never even heard that or analyzed that issue he had nothing before him except labels now the court the question i would ask you is is is that the party who was attempting to save my claims are not barred by the bar order not barred by the bar order isn't the obligation on him to put sufficient facts forward that the court can make that determination not of the those but he doesn't make the determination of what's being masqueraded that's up to the defendants to say we have a bar to judge now analyze that in the state court all they get is a border which bars contribution claims it doesn't make a determination as to every before in the san diego accords which are saying looks at it let's suppose that the state court errors and really does give a pass to pursuing those claims even though they think this is fair so we're going to let we're going to construe it this these claims that are being made here are not being are not barred even though if this were fairly good a gated fairly and someone has to make that factual determination and that's the court where the factual issues are pending which is the state court in that situation your honor invision a court and they latently violates that as a matter of clear fact and law the federal court doesn't