[00:00:01] Speaker 02:
We will hear argument now in number 15-3190, Jefferson against Merit Systems Protection Board.

[00:00:12] Speaker 00:
Ms.

[00:00:17] Speaker 00:
Jenkins.

[00:00:17] Speaker 00:
Hi.

[00:00:17] Speaker 00:
Good morning.

[00:00:19] Speaker 00:
This is a removal case that was appealed to the MSPB that the MSPB dismissed on procedural

[00:00:27] Speaker 00:
grounds and did not review substantively because what it said is that the union that brought the case had to file the transcript when it filed the petition for review.

[00:00:46] Speaker 02:
What happened was... Can I just clarify something?

[00:00:49] Speaker 02:
I thought that the board relied on several grounds, one of them

[00:00:56] Speaker 02:
which it said all by itself was sufficient had not to do with the transcript, but with the agency decision, which was never submitted.

[00:01:08] Speaker 00:
That was another one.

[00:01:10] Speaker 00:
Let me, let me make the distinction.

[00:01:12] Speaker 00:
The regs, when they do an acknowledgement letter, the acknowledgement letter says we need the decision and basically or the agency decision in this case.

[00:01:26] Speaker 00:
This case went to arbitration.

[00:01:29] Speaker 00:
We had a binding arbitration decision.

[00:01:33] Speaker 00:
What we asked for review of was that binding arbitration decision.

[00:01:39] Speaker 01:
But the rule regarding appeals from an arbitrator's decision, this is 1201, 155, D4 requires that

[00:01:54] Speaker 01:
not only the arbitrator decision, but the agency decision as well.

[00:01:59] Speaker 00:
Right.

[00:01:59] Speaker 00:
That is a very confusing thing.

[00:02:02] Speaker 00:
I've been doing this for over 20 years, filing cases with the MSPB, and I know that the regs were revised in 2009.

[00:02:10] Speaker 00:
They have never reviewed the agency's decision.

[00:02:15] Speaker 00:
They've never asked for it before.

[00:02:17] Speaker 01:
But that's what the rule requires.

[00:02:20] Speaker 00:
Yes, but that's putting form over substance because what they say is they are reviewing what you ask them to review.

[00:02:28] Speaker 00:
You are asking them to review the arbitrator's decision.

[00:02:35] Speaker 00:
Now this is what usually happens if there's something that's not in the record, they will send you an order to show cause why this case should not be dismissed on procedural grounds

[00:02:45] Speaker 00:
for failure to give any part of the record.

[00:02:50] Speaker 00:
There was no order to show cause here.

[00:02:56] Speaker 00:
None at all.

[00:02:58] Speaker 00:
They never asked for the agency decision.

[00:03:01] Speaker 00:
That never happened.

[00:03:03] Speaker 00:
So what they did was, in its desire to dismiss on procedural grounds,

[00:03:10] Speaker 00:
That's exactly what they did.

[00:03:12] Speaker 00:
It's to their advantage to dismiss cases on procedural grounds.

[00:03:16] Speaker 00:
So rather than looking at this case and saying this is a viable case, it has a complete record.

[00:03:22] Speaker 00:
We have the brief arguing against the decision of the arbitrator.

[00:03:30] Speaker 00:
We are just going to dismiss this out of turn, not simply for the transcript.

[00:03:35] Speaker 00:
Also, what the MSPB is arguing is that the transcript was mandatory.

[00:03:40] Speaker 00:
And all throughout 1201.155D, it says that you may submit a transcript.

[00:03:51] Speaker 00:
It's throughout.

[00:03:52] Speaker 00:
Even in this acknowledgment letter, the MSPB says you may submit the transcript.

[00:03:59] Speaker 00:
It is not mandatory, as the MSPB now says in its brief.

[00:04:06] Speaker 00:
What we argue is that the ALJ, the ALJ, excuse me,

[00:04:10] Speaker 00:
the arbitrator found the facts as we asked the arbitrator to find the facts.

[00:04:17] Speaker 00:
He found that the performance improvement plan had not been properly conducted, that the bargaining unit employee had sought training and had been rejected between 10 to 15 times the request for training had been rejected.

[00:04:38] Speaker 00:
All we asked the board to do was look at the findings, apply the proper law, knowing that training is the touchstone of a performance improvement plan, and consistency.

[00:04:55] Speaker 00:
We said also look at the arbitrator's findings that the supervisor gave inconsistent instructions as to what should be done.

[00:05:07] Speaker 00:
So we said,

[00:05:08] Speaker 00:
All we want you to do is apply the law here.

[00:05:11] Speaker 00:
That's all we need you to do.

[00:05:13] Speaker 00:
We don't need you to look at anything else.

[00:05:15] Speaker 00:
And they never did ask for the agency's decision, which meant nothing after we go to binding arbitration, because what our contract says, what the collective bargaining agreement says is, what happens after the decision, the agency's decision, it's null.

[00:05:38] Speaker 00:
once we go to binding arbitration.

[00:05:41] Speaker 00:
And it's that arbitration decision of which we sought review that we did not get for purely procedural reasons.

[00:05:53] Speaker 00:
And the most important point is that there was no show cause order.

[00:05:57] Speaker 00:
There was no request that we give the agency decision.

[00:06:02] Speaker 00:
And over 20 years, I've never, ever submitted the agency decision

[00:06:08] Speaker 00:
after we've had an arbitration decision.

[00:06:13] Speaker 00:
And so what's most important is you have someone with 15 years of government employment.

[00:06:21] Speaker 00:
You've got a decision by an arbitrator that says the PIP was wrongly conducted, but I'm going to deny the grievance anyway.

[00:06:32] Speaker 00:
And then you've got the MSPB saying, well, we're not going to review it.

[00:06:38] Speaker 00:
on the merits, we're going to simply dismiss it on procedure.

[00:06:44] Speaker 00:
One of the procedures being the mandatory submission of the transcript, which its own regs and its acknowledgment letter say over and over.

[00:06:56] Speaker 00:
The board's notice states that the record on appeal may include a transcript of the hearing.

[00:07:07] Speaker 00:
And that is plain as day in 5 CFR 1201.155D.

[00:07:19] Speaker 00:
So what we want is for the court to either send this back and tell the MSPB that you've got to decide this case on the merits.

[00:07:32] Speaker 00:
that if the agency decision is so important to you, which it isn't, because under our CBA, the agency decision becomes defunct once we get a decision from the arbitrator.

[00:07:50] Speaker 00:
So if we ask you to send this case back telling the MSPB that they must determine this case on the merits

[00:08:01] Speaker 00:
Look at the file, and if that agency decision is so important to them, request it.

[00:08:08] Speaker 00:
But simply don't throw it out, because you don't have it.

[00:08:14] Speaker 00:
The other point is, if you don't think that that is doable, and we don't think the MSPB is going to be fair about it, we would ask you to look at the decision of the arbitrator.

[00:08:26] Speaker 00:
Look at the findings that he made.

[00:08:29] Speaker 00:
and simply apply the law.

[00:08:31] Speaker 00:
Apply the law of this court, which was said in Martin versus, I think it was Aviation, 1986 case, that the training is the touchstone of a properly conducted performance improvement plan.

[00:08:54] Speaker 00:
That that's the touchstone.

[00:08:55] Speaker 00:
The arbitrator found that

[00:08:59] Speaker 00:
management here did not, and in fact refused requests for training.

[00:09:09] Speaker 00:
That's the most important thing.

[00:09:11] Speaker 00:
And that the managers well gave inconsistent and conflicting directions.

[00:09:20] Speaker 00:
He made these findings.

[00:09:21] Speaker 00:
So we were never, ever trying really to confront the findings of the arbitrator.

[00:09:29] Speaker 00:
We welcomed them.

[00:09:31] Speaker 00:
We thought they were good findings.

[00:09:33] Speaker 00:
What we thought went wrong was his application or lack of application of the law.

[00:09:39] Speaker 00:
We said, had he properly applied the law, there is no way he could have denied the grievance.

[00:09:49] Speaker 02:
Would you like to save the remainder of your time for rebuttal?

[00:09:52] Speaker 02:
Excuse me?

[00:09:53] Speaker 02:
Do you want to save the remainder of your time for rebuttal?

[00:09:55] Speaker 03:
Yes, I do.

[00:09:56] Speaker 02:
OK, thank you.

[00:09:58] Speaker 02:
We will hear from

[00:09:59] Speaker 02:
Ms.

[00:10:00] Speaker 02:
Litterer.

[00:10:10] Speaker 04:
May it please the court.

[00:10:11] Speaker 04:
The board correctly denied petitioner's request for review of an arbitration decision because she failed to file the required copy of the agency decision, removing her from her position.

[00:10:20] Speaker 04:
The board's regulations.

[00:10:23] Speaker 02:
So Ms.

[00:10:23] Speaker 02:
Jenkins says that

[00:10:27] Speaker 02:
over 15 or 20 years of her experience, the board never actually requires submission of or often doesn't require submission of the agency decision.

[00:10:39] Speaker 02:
And so I want to ask you, what can you say about that?

[00:10:42] Speaker 02:
And then she also, I think, offered a kind of here's why that occurs, which is that the agency decision is more or less or even completely superseded by the arbitrator's decision.

[00:10:54] Speaker 02:
Can you address that?

[00:10:56] Speaker 04:
Well, the regulations do state that the agency decision is a mandatory document that must be submitted in order to enable board review of an arbitration decision.

[00:11:04] Speaker 04:
I'm not familiar with any cases where the board hasn't required that.

[00:11:10] Speaker 04:
But one possible reason why that decision is necessary is even though the board's reviewing an arbitration decision, just to know the basis of the agency's action, the facts that the agency says are underlying the action,

[00:11:26] Speaker 04:
Um, it makes sense that that document would be required because, um, you can't just go based on what the arbitrator said.

[00:11:34] Speaker 04:
If the board's reviewing the decision, it could decide that the arbitrator was wrong or that he misstated facts, et cetera.

[00:11:40] Speaker 04:
So obviously having the agency decision, which was the basis of the action that's being appealed would seem to be very important if you're reviewing, um, an arbitration decision.

[00:11:49] Speaker 02:
Um, was, was the, um, the kind of, um,

[00:11:54] Speaker 02:
description of general practice that Ms.

[00:11:56] Speaker 02:
Jenkins gave was, was there something in this proceeding in which that assertion was made to the board as a reason, justification for having not submitted the agency decision?

[00:12:17] Speaker 04:
No.

[00:12:17] Speaker 04:
And in fact, at no point did a petitioner attempt to submit the agency decision or to provide any explanation for why.

[00:12:24] Speaker 04:
she was not submitting the agency decision.

[00:12:26] Speaker 04:
And with regard to the argument that the board didn't issue a show cause order, the board did issue a clerk's order, which is at page 51 of the appendix on February 20, 2015, which specifically- Is this what Ms.

[00:12:44] Speaker 02:
Jenkins referred to as the acknowledgment letter?

[00:12:46] Speaker 02:
Yes.

[00:12:47] Speaker 04:
OK.

[00:12:47] Speaker 04:
It specifically set forth all the mandatory requirements in the second paragraph that the board's regulations

[00:12:54] Speaker 03:
require, including... Is that just like a standard form paragraph that everybody gets as part of an acknowledgement letter?

[00:13:01] Speaker 04:
It could be sent as a result of the record not being complete.

[00:13:06] Speaker 04:
It could be set as a standard.

[00:13:07] Speaker 04:
I'm not aware whether it's sent in every single case.

[00:13:10] Speaker 04:
However, Petitioner did respond to this clerk's letter, but chose not to offer any argument for why she wasn't submitting the agency decision or even mention it.

[00:13:22] Speaker 04:
She just submitted a list of corrections to what she had already submitted.

[00:13:26] Speaker 04:
So the board did notify her and point out that she was represented at all stages of the board appeal and received notification of the requirements, the mandatory requirements of the regulations.

[00:13:46] Speaker 04:
She chose to not offer any substantive response and not ever attempt to submit the agency decision.

[00:13:53] Speaker 02:
Is it the board's view that failure to comply with this element of the regulation is or is not subject to any kind of waiver justification based exceptions?

[00:14:12] Speaker 02:
I couldn't quite tell from the board's final order.

[00:14:17] Speaker 02:
There's language about it being mandatory and it precludes the board.

[00:14:21] Speaker 02:
On the other hand, that follows a sentence in which I think the board says that in this case, no explanation was offered.

[00:14:32] Speaker 04:
Right.

[00:14:32] Speaker 04:
The board could decide to waive its requirements as sometimes it does if good cause is shown.

[00:14:38] Speaker 04:
In this case, however, she didn't offer any cause at all.

[00:14:42] Speaker 04:
So there was no reason for the board to

[00:14:45] Speaker 04:
consider waiving its requirements.

[00:14:48] Speaker 04:
And I would like to just point out that the board's decision was not based in any way on the failure to submit the transcript.

[00:14:57] Speaker 04:
The board dismissed the case because of the failure to submit the agency decision and also mentioned that Petitioner also did not submit any other evidence or argument that would enable her to overcome the deference to the arbitrator's fact finding.

[00:15:13] Speaker 04:
The board listed the transcript as one possible example of evidence that she could have submitted, but in no way was trying to imply that that was a mandatory document or that that was the only piece of evidence she could have submitted.

[00:15:24] Speaker 04:
Ms.

[00:15:27] Speaker 01:
Jenkins made the comment that in all of the years of her experience, she'd never filed the agency decision when appealing an arbitrator's decision.

[00:15:40] Speaker 01:
Is there a pattern or

[00:15:42] Speaker 01:
practice at the MSPB in appeals from arbitrators decisions, not to require the agency decision.

[00:15:52] Speaker 04:
I'm not aware of any such practice and Ms.

[00:15:54] Speaker 04:
Jenkins has not raised any identified any cases where the court has not followed its regulations.

[00:16:00] Speaker 04:
So I'm not really able to respond to that in the absence of any offerings of cases where the court didn't follow it.

[00:16:07] Speaker 04:
It's, it's a regulation that the board follows.

[00:16:10] Speaker 04:
as far as I'm aware, in all cases, unless some sort of reason is given for waiving those requirements.

[00:16:18] Speaker 03:
So you're familiar with other cases in which the board applied this rule?

[00:16:24] Speaker 04:
I don't have any specific sites for you, but I am aware that that is the practice that the board follows.

[00:16:33] Speaker 04:
So the board's regulations state that a request for board review of an arbitrage decision must contain

[00:16:39] Speaker 04:
legible copies of the final grievance or arbitration decision, the agency decision to take the action, and other relevant documents, which may include a transcript or state recording of the hearing.

[00:16:49] Speaker 04:
In the clerk's letter of February 20, the clerk gave petitioner additional time to supplement her petition for review with any of these required documents after notifying her of the requirements.

[00:17:02] Speaker 04:
And as I mentioned, she responded to the letter but made no attempt to file the agency decision or anything else.

[00:17:10] Speaker 04:
So because this mandatory document was not filed, the board properly dismissed the petition for review.

[00:17:18] Speaker 04:
And as I already mentioned, the board also made a secondary finding that her failure to submit any other evidence, including the transcript, would render her unable to overcome the deference to the arbitrator's findings.

[00:17:32] Speaker 04:
The board's review of the arbitrations is limited.

[00:17:35] Speaker 04:
And there's a higher standard of deference to

[00:17:40] Speaker 04:
an arbitrator's findings of fact than there are to just a typical straight appeal of an agency action.

[00:17:46] Speaker 04:
Because Petitioner opted to pursue her grievance through the grievance process rather than directly appealing it to the board, she opted to follow the increased deference standard of review that the board has for an arbitrator's decision.

[00:18:05] Speaker 04:
She could have opted to just directly appeal the agency's action and then

[00:18:09] Speaker 04:
the board would have had more leeway in reviewing that decision.

[00:18:12] Speaker 04:
Ms.

[00:18:15] Speaker 01:
Lederer, one thing that sort of struck me as a little bit odd here in the board's opinion is that there's no discussion at all of the merits or there's no discussion at all about why the absence of these documents leaves the board unable to overcome the deference of the arbitrator's decision.

[00:18:41] Speaker 01:
And I wonder why the board didn't at least make an effort to say, you know, you didn't follow the rule.

[00:18:48] Speaker 01:
You didn't submit the agency decision.

[00:18:50] Speaker 01:
You didn't show cause why the transcript was late, so we're not going to consider that.

[00:18:56] Speaker 01:
And you haven't given us anything else.

[00:18:58] Speaker 01:
And you raised the following six issues, all of which require the submission of some evidence, and we are left where we can't decide.

[00:19:08] Speaker 01:
It's just the board simply said,

[00:19:10] Speaker 01:
Well, you didn't follow the rule.

[00:19:13] Speaker 01:
You're done.

[00:19:15] Speaker 01:
It strikes me a little odd.

[00:19:17] Speaker 01:
Well, I would have to... They didn't dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

[00:19:22] Speaker 01:
They certainly had the case before them.

[00:19:25] Speaker 01:
They had the power to decide.

[00:19:26] Speaker 01:
And I don't know anything about the merits of the case, but I can imagine a case where the issue that the board has to decide really

[00:19:38] Speaker 01:
not dependent upon anything that's either in the agency decision or the transcript.

[00:19:45] Speaker 04:
Well, the procedural requirements for obtaining appeal are sort of a threshold issue for the board to even consider the merits of the case.

[00:19:55] Speaker 04:
So if the board finds that those aren't met, then it cannot review the underlying case.

[00:20:02] Speaker 01:
Even if there was a case where they

[00:20:06] Speaker 01:
They could make a decision of some sort.

[00:20:09] Speaker 04:
They're basically finding that they don't have the authority to review this case.

[00:20:13] Speaker 04:
So they're not reviewing the case.

[00:20:16] Speaker 04:
So that's why there wasn't any discussion of the actual underlying merits.

[00:20:20] Speaker 04:
It would actually be improper for the board to attempt review of a case where the requirements for review have not been met and to start talking about opinions about the decision.

[00:20:30] Speaker 04:
The board found the requirements for it to review the decision were not met.

[00:20:35] Speaker 02:
And that was a pair of requirements, namely the 155D plus or as modified by the good cause provision.

[00:20:47] Speaker 04:
Well, the requirements are in 155D and the board does have the ability to enforce or not enforce its regulations.

[00:20:54] Speaker 04:
So that's not really codified in the regulations, but if good cause had been offered, it's conceivable that the board would have considered whether to

[00:21:04] Speaker 04:
waive the requirements.

[00:21:07] Speaker 04:
But as far as discussing the merits, I think it would be improper for the board to discuss the merits when it's already found that it has no authority to decide the merits.

[00:21:16] Speaker 01:
So, and that could give rise to other issues.

[00:21:18] Speaker 01:
Well, I guess that's what I'm trying to tease out.

[00:21:21] Speaker 01:
Right.

[00:21:21] Speaker 01:
I mean, I understand the rule and I understand that the rule requires compliance.

[00:21:27] Speaker 01:
But if one fails to follow the rule,

[00:21:33] Speaker 01:
Does that eliminate the authority of the board to decide nonetheless if the case before them is such that they could make a decision on the merits, despite the failure to follow the rule?

[00:21:48] Speaker 04:
Yes.

[00:21:48] Speaker 04:
The board is essentially finding that it doesn't have jurisdiction to decide this case because the procedural requirements were not met.

[00:21:56] Speaker 01:
I thought the board was pretty careful in not dismissing for lack of jurisdiction.

[00:22:03] Speaker 01:
just to avoid this issue?

[00:22:04] Speaker 04:
Well, the board does dismiss for lack of jurisdiction when the requirements for review are not met.

[00:22:12] Speaker 04:
This is more akin to a procedural dismissal, but it's the same sort of, there's a threshold for review, and the petitioner has the burden to meet that threshold, and she has not met it.

[00:22:23] Speaker 04:
So the board does not go into the merits of the case.

[00:22:30] Speaker 04:
Do you have anything else?

[00:22:32] Speaker 04:
if the court has no further questions.

[00:22:35] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:22:42] Speaker 00:
Just a few corrections.

[00:22:46] Speaker 00:
We were not trying to overturn the deference that should be paid to the findings of the arbitrator.

[00:22:53] Speaker 00:
What we argued to the MSPB throughout our brief was these findings are what we ask for, is what

[00:23:02] Speaker 00:
we look for is what we tried the case for, to find that the PIP was not properly conducted.

[00:23:12] Speaker 00:
He made those findings.

[00:23:14] Speaker 00:
What we said is that the law was not properly applied, and we asked the MSPB to apply the law.

[00:23:22] Speaker 00:
Now, as far as the MSPB getting back and requesting that we give them the agency decision, well, that's not true.

[00:23:33] Speaker 00:
The letter of February 20th, 2015 is just an acknowledgement letter that is almost generated automatically.

[00:23:44] Speaker 00:
The petition for review was filed on February 18th.

[00:23:50] Speaker 00:
This letter was processed, the letter at Joint Exhibit 51 was issued on the 20th.

[00:23:59] Speaker 00:
It's a pro forma letter.

[00:24:02] Speaker 00:
It's just issued whenever you file a petition for review.

[00:24:07] Speaker 00:
And this is the honest truth.

[00:24:10] Speaker 00:
In over 20 years of filing with the MSPB, I've never once filed the agency decision when I've had a binding arbitrational decision.

[00:24:23] Speaker 00:
Never once.

[00:24:24] Speaker 01:
Are you aware of anything

[00:24:29] Speaker 01:
from the government that establishes a pattern or practice of not requiring the agency decision?

[00:24:37] Speaker 00:
Yes.

[00:24:38] Speaker 01:
I mean, you said in 20 years you've never filed the agency decision, so the question I have is... Is there a pattern?

[00:24:46] Speaker 01:
Is there something you are relying on that would permit that course of action despite the clear language of this rule?

[00:24:55] Speaker 00:
Exactly this.

[00:24:56] Speaker 00:
This is what has always happened with us, with everyone I know who is plaintiff's counsel.

[00:25:05] Speaker 00:
If an individual is going before the board and there has been no arbitration decision, and they are contesting the agency's decision to remove them, to give them a 14-day suspension,

[00:25:25] Speaker 00:
if they're going directly to the board, that agency decision is crucial to the review.

[00:25:33] Speaker 00:
They have nothing else to review but that agency decision.

[00:25:39] Speaker 00:
When you get this letter, and no, I did not try to make an excuse for not putting in the agency the letter, absolutely.

[00:25:50] Speaker 01:
I'm not looking for an excuse.

[00:25:51] Speaker 01:
What I'm looking for is,

[00:25:53] Speaker 01:
something that indicates that the government doesn't ask for the agency decision.

[00:25:59] Speaker 01:
And you said in 20 years, you'd never filed it.

[00:26:03] Speaker 01:
What is the basis for you taking that action despite the clear language of this rule that says to the contrary, you have to file it.

[00:26:12] Speaker 00:
Okay.

[00:26:13] Speaker 00:
This is what it says.

[00:26:14] Speaker 00:
This letter goes out regardless of whether you are appealing an arbitration decision

[00:26:23] Speaker 00:
or whether you as an individual are coming.

[00:26:27] Speaker 01:
I understand the letter.

[00:26:28] Speaker 01:
I'm asking you is what, on what basis in your 20 years of experience where you've not filed the agency decision from an arbitrator's decision, on what basis do you take that action despite the rule which says you must file it?

[00:26:49] Speaker 00:
Well, basically it's the past practice.

[00:26:52] Speaker 00:
That is basically it.

[00:26:54] Speaker 00:
That it has never been filed.

[00:26:56] Speaker 00:
The board has never requested that it be filed.

[00:27:01] Speaker 00:
In all those years, it never requested the agency's decision.

[00:27:06] Speaker 00:
Even though this letter comes out, it was understood by all who looked at it that that agency decision was only germane if you were going directly to the board

[00:27:20] Speaker 00:
from the agency decision.

[00:27:22] Speaker 00:
If you were going by arbitration, then that agency decision was defunct.

[00:27:32] Speaker 00:
It had nothing to do with your petition for review.

[00:27:37] Speaker 00:
Because many times the agency may have proposed a removal.

[00:27:45] Speaker 00:
The arbitrator may have come back and said,

[00:27:50] Speaker 00:
well, this person gets a 30-day suspension.

[00:27:54] Speaker 00:
The board cannot then go back, look at that decision to remove that person, and say, oh, well, we want to go with the removal.

[00:28:08] Speaker 00:
No.

[00:28:08] Speaker 00:
They've only got to review what the arbitrator has found.

[00:28:15] Speaker 00:
So that agency decision, this is a general letter

[00:28:19] Speaker 00:
that was not germane to our case, it's generated pro forma whenever you file.

[00:28:27] Speaker 00:
As you can see, it came out two days after the petition for review was filed.

[00:28:33] Speaker 02:
Ms.

[00:28:33] Speaker 02:
Jenkins, your red light is on, so we have to call it quits.

[00:28:40] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:28:40] Speaker 02:
Thank you for the argument.

[00:28:42] Speaker 02:
All right.

[00:28:42] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:28:42] Speaker 02:
Call counsel, and the case is submitted.

[00:28:45] Speaker 02:
Thank you.