in which it there should be in which players contenders clear evidence of personal jurisdiction over those defendants some of the cases may be transferred pursuant to fourteen zero six two those  nine hearings that the that they couldn't properly make a decision about whether to be in favor of whether to waive their defense to stay in cleveland or work to accept the transfer until they knew where they were the relevant exercise is he said to the defendants here's where i'm going to be here is where i will transfer you on january seventh have to furthering the transfer until january seventh in order to give you time the transfer and then they were then they're put in deep freeze and told you cannot do anything for a while this i guess is what underlies judge replay knows assertion that they have defense let's do a hypothetical this way you'd be here mr program where they clearly waived their personal jurisdiction defense and didn't put it in their answer if you know you're getting sent away and your case is going with you right but you have to put your only sensible way to put together all the evidence here is to understand that judge laborous gave the defendants a choice and i think that's very clear in the october and november an eighty nine hearings your choice is to as i said might my involvement is two weeks old believe me i was surprised when you know when the first pilot picked up was an appeal not a thirty year old case but but the fact is divorced from the context that there were fifty six thousand cases filed by the jocks firm in the northern district of ohio that were transferred to the east into here to pennsylvania yes or well and that's an awfully big consolidation of such cases meaning to the eastern district of pennsylvania and then say if a transfer is to take place should governors defendants request it be to the northern district of ohio procedures already in place for the pretrial mission there now that's the second or third time where by my count and looking at the record somebody said on the record behalf of your clients we'd rather be in ohio now maybe this is sort of the d c feel thing on balance it you know i'd rather be in philadelphia they'd rather be in ohio than be in philadelphia but they said it it a hobson's choice but you know whether you're talking about mr hobson stables back and meriel a good or whether you're talking about a decision that the p l o to get has to make it's still a choice you had a choice and you said affirmatively on the record send us to the northern district for when you're looking at a transfer court the issue of personal jurisdiction but basically becomes irrelevant because recall personal else was that what was supposed to be read in there instead of the actual words here which were procedures are already in place for pretrial management of these cases but the idea was that there was to be pretrial consolidation there were procedures in place in dismissing them i'm going to send them someplace where i think there is jurisdiction that was his right under fourteen zero six right he had the power to do that right if appropriate there are procedures and elements that must be considered under a the power to say i'm going to send you some place rather than dismiss it right that's correct or ok so so you didn't like greece it you never gave an alternative you just said i don't like it but he had the power to send you some place else and he did and when you got to that someplace else court had no power to transfer cases to michigan because he did it so the spontaneous without notice an opportunity to be heard which is required under six or could well he did not look at the elements that a number of the defendants in michigan tell say that they want the case transferred back to ohio prequel management and trial in cleveland wrote in quote the record says that but once  said the arbitrary transfer of cases wasn't proper the well thing we do or say we did not say since the michigan case is back to real hard because we waived personal jurisdiction he said this this is the this is the well i don't understand what that means if that doesn't mean we want to go back and have everything happen there we wanted final appeal reverse that could then be taken to us yesterday where you're thinking i'm just looking at what you said  withdraw our personal jurisdiction motion and we consent to jurisdiction will it's absolutely the case that people can say it in a language since more direct i'm not denying that you could have come in and said front of one of them if you send it back to the northern district of ohio you will resolve the jurisdictional problem i mean that's one of the statements that was and i would want read it right is a court supposed to make an attic unless it's a statement that you want to have a personal because the whole fight was about personal jurisdiction i thought you were saying don't there's no jurisdiction up there michigan don't send us there yet the mission he said we don't want to be here send us back to why there's no personal jurisdiction here you used it was all about personal jurisdiction right there were some of the transfers to michigan involved subject matter that the transfer itself was unlawful and without any person's father it will be one one i mean it just doesn't read through the way you're suggesting it because it looks like hey folks we want to be back in ohio then one could to the implication of that a position and then now you bring up arguments like subject matter station which was never raised before ever your honor the transfer of thirty four cases to mission was not as a result of lack of personal jurisdiction it was a matter of judicial its way one you come here and you've got a judge who's dismissing the cases rather than transfer him a publisher have been transferred to force you know six as opposed to what you know for sixteen thirty one as opposed to what you know  and their cases there's a you said we really meant subject matter jurisdiction when we said to the court quote this is solution i e transferring back to the judges of the northern district of ohio will these cases send it back but maybe not as those cases and you back how could it be accurate to say they've consistently objected to jurisdiction in the northern district of ohio because the issues where you are siding in the james opinion he finds that defendants have conceded that they had waited person the first action in the group of cases to be transferred to michigan including these three cases so these precise cases he had the track following a trial in michigan following a trial in any other jurisdiction so that the rulings of the transfer follow the case to trial court as long as the issue remains a viable issue they would have been able to