i move the admission case here who is a member of the bar and is in good standing with the highest courts of virginia and the district of columbia i have knowledge of her credentials and i'm satisfied she possesses the necessary  qualifications she has been my law clerk for a year and it's been my great pleasure to have the opportunity to work with her in addition to being a very good lawyer i've really enjoyed watching the way that she has struck excellent balance in her life between work and her kids and just how important her family has been to her and i hope that you know my other clerks also learn from that because it's one of the things that means a lot to me that i make sure these young people are single minded and they recognize what's really important in the world and i know that she'll be a great addition to our bar and i look forward to someday seeing you sitting at one of these tables and arguing in front of me so if my colleagues will deliberate and accept my motion and will be sw had a very quick deliberation the denial of motion to compel arbitration for these claims and the other would be if it exists and we'll get to that a refusal to stay litigation pending arbitration of these claims now i took it from your great grief at least that you no longer rely on the denial of the motion to compel because this district court can't grant it anyway and it doesn't really matter why so in our reply brief we did focus on problem with the section three is that the district court just never ruled on it that is as to these claims the district court has not refused a stay in fact the di t court reserved that in the january quarter in the march grant of the stay him even keel the district court said there's jurisdiction and cited only sixteen a one b which is a section for some paragraph not sixteen a one a which is the section three one and he in fact invited briefing on the question whether the litigation should be stayed not on the ground of couldn't be granted and the only other possible basis is a refusal to stay in the district or just just hasn't done that how can this case be here to answer so that we still do have a movable deny all based on the compound i'll get to that as part of my of the claims that are now in front of us it minutely the district court isn't going to grant a stay of those claims on the basis of finding them arbitrary but the district court expression league reserved the question whether never to house to stay those claims and didn't move so then that last point what the stay was from the district doesn't in regards to section three of the federal arbitration that stay w the discretionary stay i understand that but why does it matter the district court has not decided whether to stay the litigation of these six claims pending arbitration in fact the district court said he was still order that he invited additional briefing on was on that basis may not under federal arbitration act section this is a slight shift of focus but to me it's actually related in i want to try to get you to be clear it's something in your gray brief that i think you were quite deliberately trying to not be clear that it has to do with whether the illinois court will equal to consider didn't know of the arbit of the claims that we have in front of us the district court in colorado did not say that the illinois court could consider that those claims to know but the red brief at eleven through twelve says we're not going to preclusion you have a petition under section four the arbitration act in front of the illinois court asking for arbitration of all of the claims do you think that the illinois court can decide that really the first eighteen per pages of the brief from l g a is that the argument is no jurisdiction by the score here's the problem with that fundamentally just and why the section four compel is in play here and it and this court does have jurisdiction and can mandate under section four or section three arbitration here in so what happened here was the motion to compel filed by sequence in colorado and she opposes on and one of the arguments  exact same issues before the colorado district court sequence motion to compel arbitration has been right since october twenty second two thousand and fourteen well let me just let me just stuff you my understanding when it comes to read that in preparing for this requests that doesn't depend on the section four request i know you put both in the same motion and there was a shorthand reference to the motion to compel is covering both so that this is not the lever of the right to from cleveland ok so the so the so the so the colorado district or the l g position of the colorado st mark doesn't have jurisdiction or venue motion compel and chicago or the northern district what because obviously that's of colorado as well as the northern district of all of illinois excuse me can hear this arbitration issue the motion to compel what it's what went on the say is because the colorado motion was filed for the northern district of illinois i should the petition to compel not answer at and all the district court to do it here's the key sentence out of this to your honor out of eighty seven thirty five that's the first full paragraph their last sentence it says further if the colorado district court denies the motion so sequence motion sequent will be entitled to review by the tenth circuit court of appeals at the wrong appeal court but the point is that's the key so it says two things in the statement one is that the colorado district  to with that label alone contained two motions in it cracked section four section three that's right unquestionably if the district court denied that motion in full this would be correct except for the identification  but that would require the rejection of the section three stay requests and that and the problem is that is not that has not happened that did happen your honor in the or that order twenty nine the district of power are ordered denied all the partially stay there or stay proceedings here was not under article three but rather to stay the proceeding to say the way we understood that that sort of irrelevant when the court actually says that this is his ruling on your filing number twenty nine which is your the only state discussed in telling him twenty nine is the section three stay so i i don't think that your position is reasonable on it given the way he wrote it so so much so that the request to stay proceedings there is rather resort reservation of i don't understand what your honour's position on the reservation ruling statement is there but the bottom line is this going back to how this got set up to begin with with the northern district of illinois we raised that petition and that petition with the only reason th petition was filed was based on this and sorry line of cases in the tenth circuit which is waiver are should not waiver but an objection based on venue or jurisdiction that's the only reason we filed it we did and there are the district of illinois to respond to that position and the opposition has full jurisdiction over this and not only that of sequence does not prevail it can go up to a federal appeals court to seek relief and the and that that's a waiver of venue and that's the waiver of venue interesting back to colorado you can't have an old ways you can't might by arguing to the northern just because think about it we saw it the same relief both in colorado and illinois what was the response from l g a northern district of illinois this whole briefing and it's a seven thirty five a seven thirty seven thirty anomalous situation here i'd still believe that the sat obviously is an issue that is not an issue that's been brief but i believe an appeal from the current district court could have gone to from the current state of play is that it's as far as i can tell the tell me if i'm wrong about this it was only in your red briefs here that you said that no preclusion by the colorado court ruling on the illinois district court's determination of our pitcher billeted correct and the reason we did that is because i was first opportunity that we had to address the issue because in our motion to with which your friend on the other side points to a waiver so you just told the illinois court you should hold off because the colorado court is going to address these issues now if whatever the colorado corps was going to do was not going to have any precludes of the fact and the whole thing could be done to novo in illinois what sense did that argument to make this it made sense because they screen court review of this was certainly that in the first instance they could go back to the tenth circuit and say look i'm sorry is wrongly decided here's all these other circuits and they've decided differently that in fact you can compel arbitration outside of your district and had they done that and presumably they we anticipated they could add because of course they hit that roadblock of ants are you right away then that then that made perfect sense for the illinois to just hold off and see what happened because ultimately if the possibility existed it and sorry could have been revisited by in the ted circuit they might have gotten away and they might have gotten the opportunity to go back and  get that the current district court to compel arbitration and then in fact i'd like the court particularly to fungus on the reply brief that they did file in the colorado district court and particularly  a four hundred because there they changed the relief that they were asking for and this court should this court should not let them off the hook based on the fact they did ask the initial ask arbitration but by the time they got to their apply abramoff after realizing that they had filed their motion to compel in the wrong court they changed the rule if they are they specifically asked the court to stay in th by doing that they not only created a problem under section sixteen because section sixteen in fact has two pieces to it it has the sixteen a that it has the refus stay but it also needs to be an action under section three they took their requests out of an action under section three if you look at the conrad vs phone directories case which they cited in the reply brief that court specifically speaks to what is an action under section three and it says quote if the essence of the movements request is that the issues presented be decided exclusively by an arbitrator and not by any court then the denial of that motion may be appealed under section sixteen well they didn't write it decided by the arbitrator anymore by the they hit the reply brief they were asking the colorado district court to spend a pending the illinois court's ruling and enter the language in conrad that creates another problem because they essentially took their motion out from under section three now because of this you know they have they have two problems they have the fact that there was no refusal of the state because of this court has already determined when i asked a question about that  be the vehicle they should use then if the district court continues to refuse to rule on the motion rather than appeal under sixteen and i believe i believe that's correct your honor because because we are dealing with a situation where there were multiple the for all so we are dealing cooper wanted to talk about this and i basically wouldn't let him how can the this is the merits how can those claims in that involve the silent which can not be within fairly broad i don't want to get into an argument about fraud but within the arising under or relating to the settlement agreement because they were entitled to sell some number of silent hitch pins it's you're dealing with your earlier question goes to the phase out and certainly that they had a phase out the allegation in the complaint which is where the court what the what the district court had to accept as true was that the phase out had been completed been completed so that this is a complaint filed on july thirty first twenty fourteen yes you're right so by then it's been completed that the complaint does it not relate back t periods before july twenty fourth teen back to the date of the settlement agreement which is twenty twelve or something has ever hits twenty twelve in the country whenever the last still could be seeking damages for  activities related silent hitch pins which is as were completed by made believe to be completed by july twenty fourth teen but you could be seeking recovery for some of those activity haven't indicated they were lying about the phase out there was nothing in the record before the district court in the pleading and said it had to review which spoke about that's the only language on the phaseout in  colorado district court has jurisdiction over both the parties and subject matter presently before it and decisions on the pending motions are expected at any time it's page seventy seven thirty five what's another statement t page seven thirty spaced seven thirty six the pending colorado action was filed first and there is no basis to suggest that the colorado district court cannot fully and fairly resolve the parties dispute let's go back to a seven thirty five final statement sequent will be entitled to review by the tenth circuit court of appeals if the district court in colorado tonight has sequence motion again venue and jurisdiction as we all know is we will once this occur after the initial objection biology and it waived that right this court does have the right to review the district of colorado's analysis here and sorry it is completely in a political here and it can reverse the district court's decision and mand i don't see it now so the so again the two stops from step one arbitration clauses abroad clearly us step two the only way you can get out of that arbitration clauses if there is some clear precludes of a fact within the agreement that copyright claim is based on instruction manuals for a very specific specific vehicle cargo carrier that was part of the original ip license agreement between the parties that was the subject of the settlements that's why i think it's called your cage with the specific product  processor but does that copyright claim have to do specifically with the scientists because no it is that's the one claim i believe that you had a footnote saying probably not yes so that's the one claim that doesn't that they raised twelve claims they are the one claimed it doesn't breach there of the magic language in the arbitration clause it's clear that your cage was one of the products under the license agreement that l g allowed sequent to sow and that included everything that went with it trademarks copyrights pat