sir this case presents many interesting issues all of which i'm prepared to argue but the case can be decided on very narrow grounds the district court did not have the authority as a matter of law to enjoin the prosecution of the nonfederal claims in state court once at the decided to dismiss the federal claims for for not convenience i'd like to make two brief points before i take what i would assume based on today's experience to be a number of questions from the court first when you read the district court's opinion the district court granted the injunction pursuant to the all writs act that was the basis in the opinion the last sentence of the opinion that the district court cited for its authority the district court express authority either under the all writs act or as an express exception to the anti injunction act to enter the injunction how about the expressly authorized by act of congress clause of the  your honor as we have as well as we have a great area of the anti injunction as we have briefed it your honor we do not believe that the district court had authority as an expressed assumption under the anti injunction act to issue  themselves with the power earlier already of the federal court is an exception to the anti injunction act to enjoin proceedings in the case which was removed there is not a single thing there is not a smart yes and more didn't defendants in this case and authorize the district court to enjoin the prosecution of those fraudulent really renew state lives isn't that exactly other courts unanimously have concluded that you can there was a so called fraud fraudulent subversion gloss to the removal statute but the fact of the matter is your honor there is not a single appellate court case which court reversed he said he didn't have the jurisdiction the decide the case because he had dismissed her for not and the law in the third circuit at that time was that you couldn't consider another issue in decide until you decided your subject matter jurisdiction and that case the third circuit case all have the name on the top it's in the opinion pen was reversed nine zero by the supreme court so with this court held was that the district court had the jurisdiction because we had asserted rico claims to make that decision for this court to decide that the removal statute would allow that it could be interpreted to apply the second filed actions would require an application would be all the court said is look other circuits have done this although as i say you they all did it in dicta not one of those to decisions under the so called fraudulent subversion not one of those decisions  your argument one in which we never need to get the anti injunction act not necessarily your honor because if we get to the anti injunction act how do you get around the remov he clearly did it didn't apply the real litigation section nor could it and it didn't apply the it in jurisdiction because what jurisdiction was attempting to aid at the time that it rendered its decision it had already decided it wasn't going to consider the federal claims it had booted them for not a  is absolutely no discussion how the all writs act applied and there was no absolute no discussion that that decision was in was in aid of jurisdiction it's there's a one sentence you know how about the express authority by an act of congress you know your honor that with the public which which is affirmed in an injunction on a second fall case every court that this panel look at before and every case cited by the district court and every case cited by our opponents the judge either they affirm the denial of an injunction or they vacated how about how about an explicit finding by the district judge that the basis that the reason for the filing of the second state court suit is to do an interview or two so very removal statute what if have that finding my district judge well first of all you have to conclude that the removal statute applies to second while the actions are position but it doesn't it let me say this there's a fallacy in that because all of the cases that they look at talk about well you have to have the injunction because otherwise you could have a fraudulent subversion in a diversity case where somebody removed the case and then somebody then refile the case in state court right or we know from judge diamond that you don't need an two thousand and eight render decision and cheerios easy iclei engineers and in that case he dealt with the with a case that had been removed because there was an allegation that there was fraudulent jointer and in judge twenty's and your case in diet drug diet drugs you've said that you only enter an injunction when it's necessary and that's the test under mitchum when you describe whether why is why isn't it necessary and because you don't need to have the injunction if in the diversity case if there's a fraud this code may it please the court i am lisa cohen i represent arnold kissing one of the ten defendants in this case with counsel table or our mr massey mr vigors who represent two of the other defendants and i'm here to argue the common issues on behalf of all of the defendants and there are two issues on appeal your honor and the first is one that that as of now we've only addressed which is whether the district court abused its discretion in joining the plaintiffs and there are two reasons to affirm that injunction number one because as your your honour's have recognized the plaintiffs were subverting the removal statute and number two the plaintiffs by their shenanigans and i use that term decidedly so evaded a motion that was pending and over which the court had jurisdiction by going into state court and manufacturing a defense that otherwise was wasn't available to that suppose that before they filed the case that was moot that they had filed on the same day two parallel cases one the chance  court in delaware and one in the federal district court male as the rico claims in the federal case in the state law claims the chancery case wouldn't that wouldn't they have the perfect right as a supreme court said there's a perfect right to have parallel actions move forward one may have been stayed until the other was disposed of it wouldn't be wouldn't that be different i absolutely agree with you that would be different but that's not what so the mere fact that they filed them all in one neat package and filed in a chance record and got removed you're saying forever precludes them from going back into the state court strickly state court action based on these facts well that's not all that  state for the entire case moot that's right and it was not until the plaintiffs at sydney defendants had made for motions to dismiss on the various grounds including comedy for  non convenience the direct the stop motion that was eventually decided and defendants had also made a motion to enjoin and add a teleconference in which judge fleet said to them in no uncertain terms i don't like what you're doing plaintiffs i don't like that you form shocked i don't like that that you're before this court when you've had plenty of opportunity elsewhere and by the way why didn't you seek to remand and by the way i'm going to deny your bid for discovery and by the way i'm going to consider the direct to stop motion first because i think it's fair i think that defendants are absolutely right this case should be part by direct to stop thirteen days later muscle and more than that they didn't exactly go with decide to go into state court they kept their toes in federal court they wanted to pursue the rico claim and kept pursuing it is again would have been a slightly different case had point to said ok i'm dismissing said that in the present case there was never a time when the district court did not have jurisdiction over appellants the parties to be enjoined to decide whether it was authorized to issue the rest injunction done so it had jurisdiction and the court further say this was the fission to this is sufficient to give the district court jurisdiction to decide whether in the circumstances of the case the all writs act authorized to require that that we issue the requested injunction isn't it to decide doesn't seem to me authority to decide doesn't seem to me to have been a decision on the issue before us now what mr mark seems to be arguing is that the innate of jurisdiction passed within the anti injunction act is the same as the in aid of and approaches the necessary or appropriate in eat of jurisdiction and agreeable to the usages and principles of law which is the language from the all writs that now this court in bright or in your honors opinion has already decided that those are not the same tests that the all for broader power to grant injunctions it is not the same as saying that something is necessary in aid of jurisdiction as in the anti injunction act plaintiffs also the injunction here the power comes from the all writs act the court is also correct that the power is not prohibited by the anti injunction act because it fits within the expressly authorized expressly authorize exception plaintiffs now seem to want to carve that back but there is no case that allows such a car is there any and i understand your argument there but is there any case including one that mr mark submitted the kansas public employment case cross three lists com is another case that comes to mind and that the whole promise of that argument seems to me to be incorrect because what that accepting that argument essentially says that if a plaintiff files a case in federal court all it has to do is change the index number and refile it and new case minus the federal question jurisdiction back into state court and that somehow it is the left maybe you can help me understand this a little a little bit better supposing the the federal case claims were were preserved before judge slate and you also had state l was in and he determined that the federal claims what would we dismissed or would be dismissed because of the right to collateral so he had he had before him before the state  complaint dismiss wall of the state related claims they're correct that's correct they did and then proceeded to the delaware chancery court and filed those essentially the same claims record that that is correct that is what they they did not make a difference i mean that these are now brand new different according to plaintive claims in the chancery court well they were not pending before they were actually precisely the same claims that have been pending before judge judge sleet in this very case once a case is removed from a state court to a federal court the entire case is removed plaintiffs should not be able to through self help evade that removal defendants have absolutely the right to have that entire case heard before the federal court in fact the the removal statute says in three places that plaintiffs have subverted the removal statute that it's expressly that's an express the authorized exception to the anti injunction and he was granting the injunction accordingly if your honour's have no further questions i can sit down stuff that's that's correct they were dismissed in new york based on form not having as a form of convenience is not an issue before us in light of the district court's decision concerning the removal case that is correct ok i have t law they were dismissed performed on in new york we were filed in state court because we couldn't be in federal court the fence form shop by removing not to the federal court because they want to deal with the merits of it but because they wanted them to did and i think that i had a right to do what i did under atlanta coast where you can go into federal court and if you don't like the result in federal claims in federal court you can go in the state court on your state court claims in the supreme court said in that case we want federal court first only state court later the federal court can't enjoy it because like it or not you're permitted under our system of federalism to have parallel proceed but let's assume judge when i didn't do what i did and i stayed in the federal court t bitter bitter bitter end i didn't amend the complaint to remove the state court claims so i could prosecute those only in state court judge who it's the court below then dismisses reform on convenes based on  camp chew he cannot enjoin my clients from filing their nonfederal claims in state court so even if he was correct which he wasn't that we somehow subverted the removal statute all he would have had the power to do and all that would have been appropriate remedy would have been the state the prosecution of the chance required action until the federal court decision was decide and at that point because it would be no possibility that i could possibly do anything to interfere with federal jurisdiction was given up because of for not going beams he would have had to vacate the injunction there is just not like some colossal penalty where somebody has to give up billion dollar claims the other that's all we tried to do because what we quickly figured out when the defendants removed they didn't want to deal with the merits and the two kids who case those authorized  in the supreme court has said that congress has permitted injunctions in certain specific circumstances including where authorized by statute of right but it has to be an age of jurisdiction what do you really doesn't see that in fact the word to we know that it's not well the necessary or appropriate or perspective jurisdictions for you have three separate categories which he he he didn't pick one but you can't be the dismiss the case once he's decided that he's not going to continue the removed case what is he protecting what is there to protect why would a federal court which has decided that is not going to hear a case that has safe that has both federal and state claims because a form non why should the federal court be interfering with the state courts right to hear the state court claims it's a matter of federalism yes judge sleep you tell me marks you can go to it and any of the other fifty states in follow rico because we decided that the rico clones do not belong in federal court and mark's isn't going to do that don't forget i did refile them in federal court i b file them in the quarter