percent prejudgment interest rate that was based on not admissible hearsay affidavits and despite or demand and right to a jury trial on that issue so at the end of the day we believe this needs to be reversed and remanded back down to the district fraud in the state california look at california law and california has a very strong public policy  substantial relationship or there was a reasonable basis to make up choice for the choice of law license can i just ask you say i don't want to spend a lot of time on the choice of a question but  that's certainly a basis but there is nothing in one thousand eight hundred jonker or any other case that i've seen which requires that as an element in fact there are cases cited from the inside an arboretum from california here or federal cases held  our appeal was denied in march of two thousand and fifteen but the counter claims were filed in november of two thousand and seventeen we may have been on notice as the district court found based on a subpoena that was issued sometime to mid two thousand and fourteen that there was some investigation but the misrepresentation trying to find that sells did not accrue under under clearly established california law until that damages all of that was triggered and that was at the earliest in the summer of two thousand and fourteen so even if to decide if any court were to decide that too sophisticated national companies that do work nationwide shoes and then rely on that choice that that would be quite upsetting i think to law well the mere fact that they agreed to that would not be enough but the nature of the party is the nature of the law the nature of the work that's being performed under the contract all about i think factors honoring ye accounts the daily sleeps all of that misconduct as nasa ultimately was disqualified everybody from the us cause all problems they were doing us in contravention to the expressed terms of the contract between e d s and interview ability for us to be able to assert the various from of the fences which are well supported by the i mean this is where the court really put the blinders on and fail to account or you know give us a chance to respond w one to one doesn't exist as there was nothing in the law precluded this type of contracting arrangement and any event even the kind of ultimately failed because there's nothing in the contract that claim the court has discretion to enter summary judgment for that on being party on that claims it was on day when that's in the record for it surely there's no materials and here that exactly what happened because this is decision that was made k s t knew that what they were doing was not only wrong but a serious violation of the contracts that they had with yes the statement of work in section one point one in the state of work exactly what is called for your there is no way that us could've fathom what was going on here they dated everything they could in these contracts to make as material terms and elements of  that was only dismissed after this administrative agreement was entered into again if you are twenty eight dollars in which the nasa suspension was based on allegations that is the end days and quote unquote serious misconduct and you also have before you the findings of the district court there is no question that we would have had material tribal issues fact if this court is the district court would have taken office blinders are given its day in court and a chance to