state court and then nothing in prose has motion to remain three points i'd like to make today point one there was no jurisdiction at the time of willful and the case should have been dismissed or we amended point two even if there had authorized by statute or constitution and as the supreme court has held that we must carefully guard against expansion by jury by judicial interpretation in fact there's a presumption that all doubts all uncertain an action or proceeding for going to the convention shall be deemed to arise under the laws and treaties of the united states the district courts of the united states shall have original jurisdiction over such an action or proceeding says where the subject matter of an action ripper seating pending in a state court relates relates to an arbitration agreement or falling out of the convention that event may be the action once it moves relate to rather broad expanse it does seem expansive but it is not the right statute as to a five and that in the title of that is removal from state courts and i think this is a main problem so many hurt was not one of them ok what if you were to know if you start in federal court you're stuck you got those too if you stop one day you've got grounds for jurisdiction start in state court you could remove it well to federal court even though those two rounds it doesn't grant broaden the grant of jurisdiction set forth specifically in two or three two short paragraphs above what it does is it broadens the timeframe under twenty u s c fourteen forty six which would normally allow just thirty days it with any time until trial but there still must be subject matter jurisdiction whether it be understood but but the language also says where the subject matter and action are proceeding pending a state court relates to an arbitration agreement  can remove but you still must have subject matter jurisdiction must have both and that's the problem here what congress was doing was allowing a longer time to remove assuming jurisdiction under two o three divers statutory framework that said you can create you've got jurisdiction to confirm an award issued by arbitrator x but you don't have jurisdiction to do the granted this opportunity for the courts the so called juridical seats the courts where the arbitration takes place there are some times where for two is the primary jurisdiction they are the ones that get to vacate an award or so called set aside in award pursuant to article five one of the new york convention it is the courts of competent jurisdiction in the home court they're the only ones that get to vacate and then assuming they care which is usually done confirmation based on the baker and holmes or assume with me for the purposes of our discussion that we go beyond the question of whether the district court had jurisdiction and we say that it did tell me  about the vacate or itself and the effect of our case law on whether you were stuck with the ground stated in article industrial risk whether i dust your wits got it right or wrong it squarely answers that question does it well you're not bound by industrial risk because that has been abrogated by the ok if we were bound by industrial risk you  would have to lose on article five at issue if we were to disagree with you about the proposition that b g group did not wholly abrogate the holding of industrial risk you loose right around that might be right but e g says chapter one applies to actions in proceedings brought under the new york convention to the extent that the chapter is not in conflict with the convention remember if you apply thus your risk you are reading the convention two very important sections article five point one which says you've got to look at the jurisdictional or the juridical seat in their actions to set aside and deny confirmation based on that and you're also reading out of existence section two zero eight of chapter two of the f a a which says specifically that chapter one applies unless there's a com and the only way i could cite you that you caught a case of the only way there is a conflict is if the arbitration were conducted in another country because then all you've got to do is deny confirmation don't get vacate but  there is no conflict as here when florida was jury will seat you certainly can apply chapter one and the grounds for fake it are set forth in section pen which is what we did and what we were entitled to do i believe so let's let's assume we go back to as opposed to offsetting it with exactly right and by doing so as one of the cases that granted it are based on on the same article exceeding their powers as one of the cases said that you cannot create your at the question and slightly different way among other things the district judge here concluded that service or process was improper in this in this out you couldn't they cared if you weren't there was no proper search only if we're going to assume that that federal rules procedure for what i would get to that in a second i'm simply trying to ask whether that wouldn't dispose of the entire issue so we would never have to grapple with the tension between industrial and the supreme court opinion and whether you can go beyond the grounds stated in article five or not so let's talk  the the notice what wouldn't the federal rules of civil procedure apply if we otherwise begin with the premise was that the district court had jurisdiction at least based on two or three so the case arises under federal law it's removed to a federal court which is adjudicating federal law why wouldn't it apply its own rules of procedure to a notice and in the record volume two hundred eighty four twenty seven through four twenty eight is that notice plaintiff's counsel requested a copy of the petition he was provided a copy of position petition he then i think ten accept service under half of the coin as your i mean we have to understand this is not about initial service or process in this in this circumstance in fact article and the f a a calls it motion to floor and requires only notice be given and under florida's six eighty two so you don't have to serve under florida law you have to give notice and notice that reasonably necessary to inform the other person in the ordinary court holding and the holding in the second circuit with use of and language can be aging of the united states supreme court case in b g holding but the fact of the matter is under any standard that they would like this court to apply whether it be under the florida domestic arbitration code the florida international arbitration both article five of the convention or f a a chapter one section ten they've raised no grounds at all to overturn an orbital award they forecloses them from opposing the confirmation and judge marino appropriately and correctly applied both of those cases the complaints about the art ritual of board are myriad and go to things like the matter whether they go back to florida it doesn't matter because first of all the petition that they filed was pursuant to a florida domestic arbitration permit that even they concede has no applications proceeding there was a flo international arbitration code that they didn't even invoke and that mirrors the article five defenses in the convention only when they got to the confirmation stage did it produce the appellant say well now we want to raise chapter one defenses in section ten as a crown to oppose the the confirmation and they also raise public policy differences but none of those make a hill of beans of difference here because all of the complaints they made were addressed by the arbitration panel and rejected raised again before judge marino and judge marino looked at the arguments and said those are not sufficient grounds to overturn an arbitration award mis motives of the arbitration panel this i c c arbitration panel prepared a detailed forty eight page single spaced space a war which construed the contract page after page of construction addressing each and every argument made by the appellate in the arbitration and ultimately the arbitration panel concluded that all of the assertions made by the appellant were wrong they found no evidence of fraud by the delmonte and city specifically rejecting the fraud yet on appeal what is approach arguing that this court should vacate the arbitration award under because it's violates public policy to enforce  induced contract it's a an argument based upon a delusion they lost below the arbitration panel found no fraud so what are they left with they're making these technical arguments on jurisdiction that are not founded in the law this court has held that section two or three jurisdiction exist for a petition to vacate judge walker you led the way in two thousand and six and you're sol a opinion specifically addressing whether petitions to vacate can be heard by a federal court and whether there's tourist action of a section two or three and in the union you offered you said yes scandinavian addresses it in detail and a host of other cases all say that it is but if there were any lingering doubt there's section two of removal jurisdiction and this court's most recent decision and the other composed case and it down four months ago or five months ago  you look at to take two steps the first is to determine whether the notice of removal describes an arbitration agreement or an arbor troll award that may fall under the convention undeniably this award fell under the or convention it was a non domestic a war involving two foreign entities involving interests that implicated foreign concerns clearly a convention governed award and the second step determine whether is that there is a non frivolous basis to conclude that the arbitration agreement or the arbitration award relates to the case that had been filed in state court and which was removed and clearly there was a relationship because they were seeking to vacate the new york convention governed arbitration one would have cooper forecloses any possibility of the district court did not have jurisdiction it had jurisdiction under two or three it had jurisdiction under two o five which was adopted specifically by congress to literally permit removal of any case touching upon the convention when the court analyzes chapter two the implementing statutory provisions for the convention the very first provision sets forth congress's intention that all cases involving the convention shall be determined by us federal court courts this notion that they can go after a convention a warrant is issued and run to state court and argue state law that fences they've even were drawn that have a knowledge this is a federal issue and the federal concerns all the media chapter one domestic arbitration award cannot necessarily be removed removed under the f a a but convention awards are removable by express permission of congress enforce too restrictive covenants in the contract they call that a due process violation when all the arbitration panel did was in force expressed words of the non compete in the prohibition against sales and the obligation to return vegetative material that grew and was derived from seeds that damani had provided many years before lastly get to the statute of limitations that you which i've raised section twel f a and is the implementing provision that specifically says if you do not file a petition of vacate within three months and sort it within that time period then you are barn that you've missed your statute of limitations this this court went further and call and said if you have failed to serve that petition timely under section twelve section twelve precludes you from even objecting to confirmation regard to the color decision and that did not arise in the convention context but obviously guns albus did and gonzales construed section well cullen construed section twelve and most recently in the district court in a case that we readily apparent that this court had jurisdiction under two three and a virtual five and that the appellant offered no legitimate reasons to vacate an arbitration award that was rendered by the i c c panel after two thank you thank you we immediately told the arbitration panel the decision needed to be corrected as pursuant to the procedure that the i c c sets for and they rejected that they indeed even they refused to consider it and we all the new case showing that the