much time so if you could keep that in mind and try to keep your argument to ten minutes or so we really appreciate the time to do so it's actually a procedural issue well yeah the court indicated this is a relatively straightforward procedural issue goodwin filed a copyright complaint the district court determined that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the complaint specifically that it did not allege a claim for copyright infringement at which point the district court allowed we to a man and in the event that goodwin clearly alleged i copied breach of contract or motion to reconsider or no i don't believe any motion to reconsider was filed i don't believe there's any requirement that when a district court enters an improper judgment that it be that a motion to reconsider be with prejudice so as far as i'm concerned i'd be interested in your response to the your opponents arguments so that's where i'm coming  concern the judge says i don't have jurisdiction i guess feeling that the suit is is a suit on the prior settlement agreement and not a real federal copyright infringement for a trademark for human case copyright infringement so the judge concludes i have no jurisdiction i just don't understand how the judge can dismissed with prejudice by saying there's no jurisdiction district court did determine that it would have diversity jurisdiction and went on and did address the merits and gave the other side gave the plaintiff a chance to come back with and and clean permits or gives the court power to do that your honour's i would like to address something that was brought up by the appellants in their reply brief on page five in regard to the textile productions case they quote that case a lack of subject matter jurisdiction usually justifies only a dismissal not a dismissal of prejudice it's our position that the use of the word say that that a court without jurisdiction dismissed the case with prejudice under circumstances like this with the best authority you have not just the court's opinion which is found in the record it pages fifty eight or sixty nine i believe perhaps would be the way the court wrote its order it is a little bit confusing faith he is just dismissing the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction but then he goes on to say that the court does have diversity jurisdiction and goes ahead addresses the merits and it gets into the fact that there was a state court judgment prior which by the way i c see how possibly the plaintiffs would have a three and a half month time period where they could possibly claim royalties due to them but that should be an issue that they should take up with the state court where they originally got the state court judgment such a claim is barred by the previous judgment i take it your motion likely presented that issue but the district court didn't say there can't be a claim here but then apply the issue but didn't close it out and then gave leave to a man who might selected not to a man the next thing the plaintiffs know and you know it sounds like the court came out with its own orders and i like you submitted an order in and he entered it but he came out with an order that says dismissed with prejudice and that's that's part of the cla which he acknowledged in his longer order that the court wasn't determining was thereby extinguished fly a dismissal with prejudice and i guess that's the part that seems to me is inconsistent with what the district court did here having acknowledged there was a claim that he wasn't  the way i read the district judge's order is that there's only a train a half month time period where the plaintiffs could possibly have a claim there for an argument and if there was an error in this case it would be harmless because where the plaintiff is going just briefly try to clarify a couple of points i think the court was correct that in the statement in the initial order where it started the and then the complaint shall be product in twenty days the court restating conventionally case cited by counsel that was the federal circuit acknowledging that in the context of a motion for summary judgment where the facts appeared to establish that the standing requirement could not be cured that perhaps under those circumstances it might be appropriate and for the dismissal of prejudice that was there reference subsequently as we pointed out the federal circuit five years later in two thousand and three determined sorry where the court determined that a lacked subject matter jurisdiction even if the order technically says with prejudice that of course it can't be with prejudice and therefore it's not a bar for subsequent act as the federal circuit decided and  were pursuing this in two different angles one was appealing the substantive decision at the same time we were saying that that the previous suit was not a bar in fact i think the allegation of judge shopping is inappropriate the case was filed before exactly the same judge was resolved forgers kalar there was no argument judge shopping it was simply our attempt to show to the district court judge that the previous judgment was entered improvidently here is the complaint it the other federal suit or in state court or both or is that just i think that's you sorry for jumping in the early that's not an issue that this court and her dress needs to address as a practical matter  either the claims would proceed in the other federal case or they would be brought to state court i think there is a number of issues between the parties i think it's likely that at this point the other lawsuit may very well be voluntarily jurisdiction the court then engaged in hypothetical jurisdiction it said assuming argue window the diversity jurisdiction exists in this case and then proceeded to offer invited three opinion now the