or four times where it looks like the post arbitration the u p s had violated the award people were sent out of their particular areas in violation of that award at least three or four times and one time was caught and when the union person came on and they pulled the person back but isn't that injury in fact and doesn't that mean that there's there's harm we believe it does your honor but we wouldn't rely solely on not in fact your honor is correct there was no fewer than three times and when you add the times that happened prior to in fact the arbitration itself it was multiple arbitrators award shall be final and binding wish to rd circuit and it's just records have understood to mean the party has authority to see confirmation of the award in court so so your honor in this question i'd i would like to say at the outset and your point is well taken that there is an injury in fact but we think it goes deeper because why should a successful litigant which is required to pursue redress for injury and arbitration be deprived of the most meaningful benefit it can obtain which is an enforceable judgment in its favor and that's something that any other successful litigant who commences  directly in court from its inception would have taken as a matter of course so we see confirmation as being understood to be part and parcel of and adjudicated process not a solitary cause of action standing on its own and that point could be made and i think has been made when you take into consent into consideration the strong unmistakable federal policy favoring arbitration  these injuries were occurring what it should move to confirm at this point well your honor i think it speaks to my client's good face and it also addresses the arguments made by counsel in his brief as well as some comments commentary by judges in other cases which is to say we were given the company the opportunity we want need your career running into court we were trying to you know maintain a relationship this is labor relations so we had the opportunity to do that that is correct but we were trying to demonstrate our bona fides which i believe we did and there's no suggestion in fact in the adversary papers that access to contempt should be the basis for a denial of a motion for confirmation or that it would put the it should put the brakes on confirmation it's an inappropriate weapon in other words and that should be rejected st of all u p s controls not only contempt but confirmation by its own conduct seconal confirmation would require that we demonstrate to the court at the appropriate time i'm sorry contempt at the appropriate time that the judgment has been violated you would have to meet the four corners of not only the award but the judgment till it's over there oh here is your position that that party can always be confirmation of an award that inherent so you could you could go to court the next day and say hey we've got a war from the arbitrator we want to confirm judge the right thing i believe that's correct your honor that may sound extreme but it's not it is what the parties bargained for more importantly it's what the statute provides this is a process that the courts and congress have developed over nearly a century whereby the federal courts are spared the whole litigation time and expense of adjudicating these types of disputes they're handled by arbitrators so we're d by it then there is no real fight there's there's several issues with there when your honor and i would start with it's it's lack of any contemplation and all of the federal arbitration act  itself nd it's e mail to the f a a can create subject matter jurisdiction that doesn't exist right so that is but that's a starting point and they and the german court seems to be taking the position that if you don't have a fight you don't have an article three controversy and of subject and who cares what the f a a says what's wrong with that logic well your honor i think it ignores why it is there is a federal arbitration act to begin with because it's providing the apparatus to adjudicate these disputes a dispute in this case as others where an arbitrator has found an injury that injury was redressed in this case specifically along the lines of what the union asked for a cease and desist going forward now and then when it was essentially the same thing conceitedly but they seem to focus on a burdening of the courts or the potential glut of these types of cases coming forward and i could tell your honor that that's misplaced i've represented this local for some twenty five years we've never done this it was only because of circumstances on the ground that were even contemplating it  should we get a judgment going forward it's not necessarily the case that we're going to be running into court as i said before any application following a judgment would have to meet appropriate standards meeting the four corners it's not as if we can just say we have a judgment here in contempt there's a lot how well in the counties i think you just said that the arbitrator found an injury and right drastic if that's the case how is it that you have an injury in fact at the time the petition was filed in federal court well your honor there were repeated injuries following issuance of the arbitrators order but we think the entire structure of the f a a as well as the court which encouraged indeed mandate that we had that we adjudicate these cases at arbitration contemplated that for that final redress i e the thing that really matters  the path violations would demonstrate the fact finder chose to demonstrate there is an imminent risk of future injury that would be one theory if i understand you correctly the nd is you're suggesting just just to that point to show it's part and parcel of an idiot a good process the f a a talks about these in terms of motions and applications it doesn't talk about new causes of action these are understood as i read it and i believe as cases certainly in the sr circuit of the nd circuit would read it that this final judgment is part of that whole process to the st point your honor absolutely there was injury there were ongoing and i would say past being prologue i think the union was correct that this could happen in the future as well and you were starting at one point to talk about spokeo and we asked folks  chat with us about that so what what do you think about spokeo does that provide any kind of basis for our standing here your honor there's nothing in spook you which changes the standing in this case i understand how it  it goes into great detail about concreteness particularity and what have you but it also says that congress is well positioned to identify intangible harmed i'm not sure this is an intangible harm by the way but it further states that quote history in judgment of congress play important roles in determining concreteness so the court having set forth this mechanism for adjudication of arbitration followed by enforcement through confirmation has already addressed whether there's a concrete injury or not it ticks all the boxes your honor actual injury traceable to defend redressed by  favorable judicial decision so it's correct i don't believe spokeo was addressed by the court in this case below he was mentioned in the generic ok's provided by counsel friday  even then it just stood for or was presented as standing for those kind of basic standing elements which in our case d given the f a s structure and it's required use doesn't consumer friendly statute and suggested that one should have a right to to have a remedy if you've been injured but it presumes an injury and i guess i go back to back to section not is there anything that we can glean from section nine as reflecting congress identification of the harm that one should be able to seek relief for in a court and if so what is the farm well your honor the fact that it was it's phrased in mandatory terms we would argue that it's presuming that there was a and adjudicated process and a determination and a harm that has to be redressed and that's the type of that that's what we're considering here smoking spokeo at bottom i think all the cases except for the one case that happened not long ago in the district of new jersey all dealt with the same type of cases you're referring to which are these kind of privacy related issues and how technical violations like this reporting zip codes wouldn't rise to the level that those are type of cases that convention federal court from their inception the f a a is not that type of statute it's different and spoke here doesn't consider or contemplate the f a a its history its application or it interplay between arbitration in the courts and another question about section nine and it has to do with that it's interesting to me something unique about section nine section nine obviously get parties who have an agreement to go forward and order awards to be confirmed can do so and it can be done by quote any party to the arbitration close quote that seems to suggest that even a party who wasn't the injured  party could go forward should that influence that injury that analysis on my reading too much into the any party as opposed to the prevailing party as you asked the question your  contemplating how that would apply to a non prevailing party and what the benefit would be and i'm struggling i do believe the wording is probably broad enough that that could occur declaratory judgment that could certainly be the case your honor and i could certainly see should the union be on the losing end for that very for that very reason as you may have seen from some of the cases while arbitration arbitrators in arbitration aren't necessarily bound by prior arbitration decisions the way didn't have to obviously of the federal court judgment would have that presidential value that could be beneficial could be  continuing adjudicatory process in a resolution of an injury that a party sustained in the effort to get conclusion on that well i think you're right your honor and it was in one of the cases it might have been the th circuit case the unite here versus hyatt which talked about the award providing that type of kind of if not perspective but it reinforces the scope very very beneficial ramifications thank you thank you for the questions or jordan no none for me ok ok we'll hear from mr dale and then get you back on  should impose a new requirement that in addition to those people clearly exist between the parties one of the parties must raise a new dispute in order to have the arbiter award confirmed i mean the seems to be illogical excuse me judge cry put it in the n f l simple you can't that that makes no sense you can't defeat the actual dispute which led to the arbitration and the f a a to clear mandatory language by simply saying we'll be good that can't that can't be the law because the dispute doesn't evaporate then disappear because you decided to comply that i think that could be his the court's ruling there and i'm trying to get you to engage with it b no legal right to come to court period you're on the position is that if there is not an actual injury in act and they're reading an article for the only injury that the right and in this context the injury in fact is you're saying we're not we're not going to keep doing the stuff we were doing we're going to be good we're not going to do the stuff that the arbitrator said was violative of the c p a we're going to be good and you're your legal position is by saying that you subject matter to your fiction because there's no longer an active life dispute that's the sum and substance of it right i think it's very very close to that well it would be even what even though there were violations here say ok i lost i'm going to be good and the statutory right you have to confirm that award you filed within one year you don't get to do it just don't get to do it too bad and that really seems to be saying we're going to require some type of inefficient case or controversy requirement even though what this is a seems if it is the entry of a for example a confirmation of the entry of a mandate after a court rules on an issue courts don't pause before the final step of proceeding to assess whether the controversy is still alive why should we really reassess here between the entry of the warden confirmation idea what they're asking for it's confirmation of the award that was made and and that seems to be something that the f a a says they are entitled to now i understand we're under the labor management act here but all the decisions going back decades tell us we look to the f a a and i don't hear anybody on this call or in the briefings saying you know no don't pay attention the f a a the f a a is this is the thing compulsory and they have said that what is it that makes u p s folks think that merely by saying we're going to abide that the case or controversy that created  arbitration and which they won is no d longer alive case or controversy which half of the confirmed good pure logical anybody could come in after an arbitrary win and say i give up says there's got to be a new dispute there's got to be not like here you know it sounds like what you're doing is you are conflating enforcement saying there's a violation and you're looking for a sanction with  between all of which i think that if you look at this ok ok now i would like their address folky airwork as well as mr del this is the this is what we're what we're battling the hoover right in this big conversation you say there have to be an injury in fact there with an injury in fact there would be injury in fact that took you guys into arbitration you had legally opposing positions you went before an arbitrator at the c d a required you got a result that said what the answer was to the legal dispute now it appears on the very straightforward application of the statute very patent to go to court and get that award arbitrated and where in the statute or anyplace else is there a requirement that there be some new or different fight than the one that created the arbitration and the award well your honor i understand the court and counsel business was the underlying end if you want to keep the law doesn't the f a a create a statutory right to confirmation of an arbitration award yes it does but when and if the union is denied that right isn't that an injury in fact no i don't believe it is that was out there that they could get and that to interact with the union position here were when they are looking or is confirmation in the event of a future violation which the unit it met there redress by virtue of getting a judgment which allows you to have access to many things that you choose to enforce it is a different question so with that in mind it can in theory not made whole are not fully resolved until that statutory right is invoked in respect that breach of the c b s why isn't that enough to get them in a cooler to have an injury in fact and be able to actualize the statutory right they're entitled to well be an actual case or controversy on the line but the only one you're saying there's no actual case or controversy because the company said look at what i buy the award but your adversary position is the controversy has not been brought to to completion because we're entitle to a judgment congress told us that so isn't it just because you either go back to my colleagues or just ask about just because that the company takes the position we're not going to violate anymore and therefore you don't have a case you're going to proceed yeah and the courts in that instance say well that's not enough this is capable of repetition but are they doing review you can't the privates of jurisdiction by laying down and saying i give there's there was a se the statutory framework that we've got says you shall confirm this award your argument is a not a statutory based want to think it's a constitutional one your assertion is we said we give up therefore the case is over now the question being put to you why is that different from cases where there is either a consent decree where there is a request for injunctive relief and one party says i give up that doesn't end the case in those cases there is still a case  controversy until the court rules why it is different in this situation just because you are willing to say no no we were going to do good or a court is asked to shoe a subpoena before disputed this and there's but we are looking at the f a a and that's where we take our guidance i thought we were in agreement on that are we not we are absolutely no agreement on that but there are i'm good thanks thank you i think you both counsel a very interesting case and will take the matter under advisement