the court is aware of the record in this case and at the state court level the state court determined that the contract claims of expressen implied contract was intertwined with the collective bargaining agreement at lockheed missiles th was federally preempted and would not be heard before the state court counsel those are two different propositions preemption means federal law controls that does not necessarily mean that there is no conquer then at that point the interpretation of the collecting bargaining agreement plied and required the application of general law principles that at that point the case was that they kept that at that point  case was better governed by court now in all fairness maki did not say that that the case should be removed or that even that it would have been removed however our argument here is that to the extent that this ca federally preempted the usual course in this case either at that point to refile in a federal court counsel wouldn't have to do one of two things either proceed with your claim in state court and have the defendant remove it to federal court or else managed in one way or another to get your state laws to dismiss without prejudice and then refile it in federal court just curious about this the state courts dismissal of the express an implied contract claims there is no indication as to whether it was a without prejudice the words would not exist now in all fairness a reading of the federal court you can't do it just because you want to do it you're not allowed to file two lawsuits unless you get the first one dismissed without prejudice however to the extent that the of this case that would have been what would have been most appropriate was for the case to be heard in federal court now the fact that the counsel i understand you're on with that would have been most appropriate but that's not what happened happened so in your opinion what it there was nothing to present prevent mr sure at that point from going to federal court and having his claims heard if in fact he desired to do so but it seems like he took his claim to the end of the tra including his federal claim if he chose to file it and to litigate it what judge with respect to the point that i'm trying to make here is that mr bashir here was caught between between because he was not an employee he was not subject to the collective bargaining agreement nevertheless the state court determined that he that his case would be governed by the collective bargaining agreement because it required interpretation that given this that given that he was only permitted to go  you've litigated your face in state court and then they are pretty good in federal court and you can't do that unless you preserve piece of case from the state court but he was trying to do judges merely to h i have five claims to federal three state ice two in the state court the state court so i lose i can't we file the t and he said that was wrong it shouldn't have happened any want to damages for it he's entitled to advance many theories in support of that climb and he advanced many theories in support of that claim in state court he's required in state court to age and he advanced theories that he was terminated in violation of contractual rights he only theories of breach of contract that he advanced were state law theories and the court and the state court action so those theories of breach of contract under state law are cramped and the only contractual theories you can advance are governed by federal law he chose not to do so he chose not to advance a theory under federal law there may be many reasons why he chose not to in fact his claim under federal law was probably already barred when the statue of limitations when he filed his fake cause of action because it was far more than six months after his termination it was probably already barred because he failed to exhaust had mistreated remedies under the collective bargaining agreement but why he chose not to advance that isn't important to rescue the cost of reasons receive a college application  that plaintiffs in that case had originally filed actions in the state court alleging wrongs in connection with their germination of employment and the wrongs that they alleged in the state court were a breach of contract claims intentional infliction of emotional distress and fraud removed to federal court and they were dismissed by the federal court for failure to prosecute later the finds in that case filed a second action in federal court alleging that their terminations in violation of title se is in the same position he would be if you were trying to come in the state court now and say now i want to let it get my three l one claims here in state court exactly sure he's he's had his chance he chose not to pursue that theory he pursued many other