based upon the language in the in the arbitration agreement secondly whether if the case was not to be remanded whether the court properly applied the correct standard in deciding the motion vacate the ward and third whether the court hearing the arbitration award at the beginning it is of course porton to remember that arbitration is a matter of contract and solely a matter of contract arbitration curse to begin with only because  the parties have agreed to it an arbitrator's have only those powers that the parties give them in this case the parties agreed that district of columbia law were plugged in they agreed  here in the district of columbia and that green it had several ramifications first the district of columbia revised uniform arbitration act provides that an agreement to arbitrate providing for arbitration  district of columbia confers exclusive jurisdiction on the court to enter judgment on the board under this chapter court is defined in the statute as the district of for security of court specifically and that purpose is to prevent forum shopping which is an issue implicated in this case later on with respect to the  similar to this case the parties tried chosen pennsylvania laws governing which incorporated the pennsylvania arbitration statute in both cases the case was removed from that from the pennsylvania court to federal court and in both cases the court required to make that matter but we did it in those cases to the arbitration agreement have the equivalent of the second clause here now that which says can be enforced in little court of competent jurisdiction that's yeah but in here this case is kind of backwards of that because the master bow to the specific provision that related to arbitration was found in the n a s d rules and so the court found that the choice of law provision the choice of new york law was it could mean one of a couple of different things it could mean that as they want interpretation candidly is the one that that we're discussing that out of it but there are others and another is we have specifically chosen the district of and they can decide until after the dispute has arisen and so part so one of the reasons that it has to be interpreted that it can't be just any place on the planet is because that's what the parties agreed that it would not be that when they agreed to arbitrate in accordance with district of columbia law which says that the exclusive jurisdiction will be way so the se particularly as to the on the motion to remain in is essentially attempting to rewrite parties agreement of as as the district court found it really comes down to a matter of contract interpretation and the district court look is that we've got that last sentence in that governing law paragraph in these contracts that specifically states the judgment may be entered into in any court of competent jurisdiction is the district point pointed out that the most recent case that i found on it in the in the out of the d c court of appeals and decided in our brief is that a one team usa holdings case which is kind of on point for that particular issue that's decided after the revise the d c arbitration act goes into effect and there was an argument there on the court review of a develops the uniform laws nor the council of the district of columbia intended that the revised provisions of the uniform arbitration act including those related to vacating an arbitration or would convert limited arbitrator was correct to postpone here well in again it's the district court with through the analysis the district court and i think the arbitrator before it pretty much assumes that everything that learned that that attorney was leaving some five months before the arbitration day and then when that apparently actually left i think was in june or july of two october of two thousand and fourteen where every process that our counsels left is we're probably going to need a continuance here but never filed a motion never put the arbitrary or himself on notice so of course hours on the windsors day before thursday thanksgiving in the arbitrator pointed out there's a long tradition of that when that sounds like that's a good lawyering around and i guess but because of that your honor i think the arbitrator points out in his ruling on it that he didn't wind up seeing this motion until december first which i think is the following monday and of course mr five involved filed an opposition over that down to under both the federal statute in the district of columbia revised arbitration ag once there had been a denial of a motion to vacate it pretty much becomes mandatory that the reviewing court grant the motion to confirm the awar work where the arbitrator has refused to postpone the hearing upon a showing or upon a showing of sufficient cause the standard in the d c revised arbitration act as an objective standard and  decide on the motion of a first was there a request to postpone the hearing and to did the party seeking the postponement show sufficient cause and that's an issue for the court to decide it's not an sir because the question for the court is whether or not there was sufficient cause shown for a postponement if the answer is yes then the arbitrator was required to require to give the postponement and the court is required mandator under the are on the uniform arbitration act to vacate your war and be a one team case doesn't change that it said that this didn't change the existing law while the composer case was the existing law and th composure case talks about the discretion that's given to the arbitrator but when you when you have when you read the entire case and you read all of that and you think about what the statute requires and why the statue requires what it does the the the discretion that you are that the the arbitrator abuses his discretion when he refuses when he declines to grant a postponement when sufficient cause has been shown and that's the way  ultimately works out and so if they're in that in that case they the court found that that sufficient cause had not been shown because the party seeking the postponement had you know asked for ten times more time than was allowed by the by the rules and so when the court finds that sufficient cause was shown to be at the statute commands that the a work in a case and so the question is not whether the arbitrator was right or wrong or whether there's evidence to sustain his award or whether it is you know entirely possible from the evidence for him to come to that conclusion that's not the that's not the question at all the question is whether or not there was sufficient cause shown and here there was this rick mr a belief was without counsel he was dealing with a room full of lawyers on the other side there were complicated legal issues involved and he was ready willing and able to pay all of these so called under funded will cost in the event of a postponement under those circumstances official cause existed and they were and the and the postponement should have been granted