court eastern district from pursuing some two thousand three hundred state collection actions against state farm insurance company for services that hook to preserve the status quo pending the resolution of this case and therefore to avoid the necessity of having to expand the clawback aspect of this case which would be tru in rare proceedings and  particular claims on the merits this is a quote this is a claim of of a schema of fraud that goes beyond individual cases and is is is is subsumes all of the cases it's a different and a different theory and their position is that they need to to have this injunction in order to be able to have the prove the elements of the elements of fraud and in a comprehensive wrong well i think it doesn't take into account what the for all it is the case if you look at the complaint this is not a complaint that says everything that this was that these people have done is fraudulent it says these medical services are part of a a predetermined treatment protocol that everybody gets and that most of the time it's not appropriate also says some of the time it is if you look and exhibit one of their complaint they have it as part of the it's for the special part and that they have a chart and they have x that when it's fact then why isn't he in aid of court's jurisdiction exception involved or i think the cases are very clear historically that the fact that that that that akes legal reasoning on why the exception doesn't apply i'm sorry what is the reasoning you keep going back to cases but what is the reasoning on why allowing the state court cases to proceed would would not interfere with the district court's jersey whose it has nothing to do with the jurisdiction of the court it's necessary to aid the jurisdiction in the court cases have said this court has said there's a reason why we can't have simultaneous decisions at the same time one may have collateral estoppel over another and that's been the case the entire time the the the the what's made reference to below is the fact that these are insurance proceeds and there have been some insurance proceeds cases that have raised the questions of whether or not the district also found that the pattern of conduct and  how the claims were process how they worked and that that provided substantial evidence of fraud and and if you looked at the cases individual you wouldn't be able to see the pattern how do you respond to t the holding of the district court i don't believe that i think that that that is the way that these cases are litigated all in the entire no fault system and he focused on this particular one but overall litigation in which these cases can be assessed as to their function character each claim can be assessed as to is fraudulent character i'm sorry i didn't hear the understand the question what is the advantage to the  and why wouldn't a comprehensive litigation such as the one that's been brought in the eastern district accomplish the very goals of sorting out the extent to which there's fraud here because great significance of this is that this allegation of tree a pretreatment preacher me treatment protocol which council which is a foreign ministry says it's unique other research this same allegation is made in thirty six dollars that reported decisions that we know it's nationwide right now and what's going to happen is if this if this injunction is permitted to stand there's going to be a plethora of of other cases coming in and they and the systems that that are behind these are going to go right to all because they're going to have application upon application of carriers coming in and saying it's not medically necessary we can prove it's not medically necessary we want everything to be able in a court of law fraudulent because this will predetermine because they're all the same and therefore you don't call them fraudulent you have to prove their friends you know you just have to allege they're fraudulent right and then you get a stay and then you don't get that you know campaign for the next two years that's all that they have and they haven't proven anything instance at least gone on and gone and done its own declaratory judgment in the state court regarding the services that are the subject of another state court action you know the work you are place to court jonathan marks on behalf of plaintiffs happily state farm the defendants in this case used two thousand three hundred state court suits to further and i'm going scheme to commit insurance fraud through a medical clinic in new york these state court suits of the means by which defendants collect on fraudulent claims and expose state farm to repeated injuries just as importantly is this court has no d the piecemeal nature of these suits makes it practically impossible life practically impossible why is it practically impossible as you have in a rico suit that there is this scheme and then you can call back all the money  at the end of the day i mean you're going to call backing a lot of it already right some of these things are already done it the reason your honor it is practically impossible is because if you look at each one of these individual suits is typically brought based on one patient one date of service one claim that's all that's presented in each one of these individual sues and if you look at each one of those suits and each one of those claims and in love itself it may look perfectly reasonable it may look perfectly legitimate all you've go an individual patient however when you see hundreds of patients all of whom are diagnosed with exactly the same condition receiving exactly the same treatment receiving exactly the same services it is this pattern that demonstrates the fraudulent nature of the treatment what's going to prevent you from arguing all that in the rico suit and then recovering i'm not sure i understand well what is what limits us your honor is that in order to get there we there are of course the requirements of nine b we have to we have to come for with a complaint that supports this theory and we've done that here if you take a look at our complaint we haven't just said look there's they just happen to have a clinic and th just happens to be a pattern we can't i think the questions being asked of use different questions being asked simming you're successful in your why is it necessary to enjoying the suits from going forward and relegating  things one the suits themselves the fact that we are being subject to suits in which we are unable to establish the fraud in and of itself is an injury in and of itself as a harm it isn't of itself part of what this scheme is about right so if we look at and among the exceptions that we've talked about in our brief is the what is that how is that going to have an impact on the rico case in other words ordinarily you you'd win your rico case you get a big judgment and then you get to collect why is that not sufficient what is it about these piecemeal litigation that is going to prevent you from collecting on your alternate rico judgment well certainly  precluded at some point down the road from being able to recover for them and so that is certainly that the opportunity to claw back is an issue that's one to the fact of being subject to these suits proceeding except for three exceptions and the exception that we're talking about is in jurisdiction and so how is the jurisdiction of the eastern district of new york compromised by these other suits that's really the simple question it seems to me exceptions up early so we are we we in the district court ruled based on the innate of jurisdiction exception in this court we are arguing both that we are entitled to the injunction both under the  jurisdiction exception and under the expressly authorized exception and that's that's different that's not ok so expressing authorize you think the rico statute expressly authorizes injunctions of state proceedings under the particular it's i think it's the ability of the court assuming that it's evil to render a judgment in your favor to be able to effectuate that judgment and that's that's what we were it's about and then if you turn to that and you what you're seeking replan to do for the ones that have already been adjudicated that is true but again as the district you're saying you're harmed that some one thing use your harm by the actual judgments in those cases and then secondly are you saying that those judgments are to see them again and we can expect i think a score pointed out the defendants will argue that they were rescued a collar and in a minimum we can expect just record is going to have to resolve on a case by case an individual case by case basis whether each one of those as a residue to fact so suddenly you are burdening the district court with the process of figuring out whether each one of the two thousand three hundred dollars cases is is has a residue part of the fact and that could happen could play out here do you think an individual call no fault proceeding and state court is going to raise judicata effect on a rico claim in federal court it has but i think that there any any evidence of that and is it ever been found and rico cases been deemed precluded by a state court no fault action resolution at this point your honor we look if there is no residue to kind of effect then this certainly becomes a harder case but at this point what we know and what we all we know is that there is a real risk there's not a risk of issue preclusion even if there isn't a risk of cline absolutely and given that risk the district court did not abuse discretion in our view in concluding that that risk was serious enough that it needed this injunction to preclude to prevent that consequence from inhibiting its ability to decide the case in front of it and one of  the order that it so sought to enter was to protect its ability to decide whether or not to decide the declaratory relief that was sought as part of our complaint and in order to do that it needed it it needed to know that it had that these decisions had not been interfere with or had been resolved in some way by the state courts of leeds and your views of the anti injunction act allows a federal court to enjoin a state circumstances believed that there was a serious risk of work or look the district court here concluded that it felt that those proceedings were going to be rest judicata that was its findings and it concluded t that that conclusion was going to interfere in its ability to reach a judgment and to reach a conclusion as to the declaratory judgment action that was before and they and that conclusion was not a reasonable finding of the circumstances for it that would be they were being decided but they were not as the court recognized state farm was not being given a fair opportunity to demonstrate its case and it wouldn't be precluded when it and that one of the elements that would have to be met to make potentially true your honor but but again and just potentially true it just seems like you know this is a hassle be a lot easier to just do it this way i suppose but there's an injunction act that says you don't get to do this except in very rare instances the fact that compact might be a pain in the honor that under the circumstances here that the clawback took the court the district court concluded and we think rightly so the claw back was not possible here based on its conclusion that there was a residue there that th based on that conclusion and felt that we were going to be deprived of the opportunity to fully present our declaratory judgment case and therefore it was necessary native jurisdiction are just affirmed will he it's state farm prevail on the merits it will go on compensated for the time and expense wasted in the state proceedings in the arbitrations well my understanding of the law is that that's not something that can  coast the supreme court case seventy which said that some federal injunctive relief may be necessary to prevent a state court from so interfering with the federal courts consideration or disposition of a case has to seriously impair the federal courts it's a matter of fact in other cases they have requested to stay and in this case eight they decided just to ask the federal court for it but but but i don't see how that's the case because how it affects it because either way these these cases are patient specific they are because they're met there based upon the medicine and state farm itself sants it's not every case some and and so the question is well if that's the case why can't we figure out like in the litigation which ones it fits which ones it doesn't fit and for those that it doesn't fit will be liable and this was four hours as far as as far as getting the judgment is concerned i have to ed i mean this is a slow moving situation here there's a lot of carriers mean there's going to be a flow of of a steady flow of income as time goes on and editions of the interest that they get so there's going to be plenty of assets should they be successful at the trial in