identified two factors two reasons why it felt that there were exceptional circumstances and compelling reasons neither of the reasons that this record are relevant or appropriate or properly analyzed this is exactly what the district court said after going through california's a procedural rules and noting how they differ from the federal the dischord them said this quote by filing in federal court plaintiff has which he can claim state law damages in a manner inconsistent with the state laws procedural parlance this situation in the burden the ever increasing number of such cases posed to the federal courts presents exceptional circumstances reason for that and this is found in the california code of so procedure for twenty five zero is to ensure that the courts are not overburdened and are able to provide access to the digital system for all person seeking redress they need exactly what the court the concern for the compromise there may st there was a concern of the attorneys who are running around doing demand for money letters without even going to court these were extortionate and that's why one dollar of the amendments of the as the lebanese six began any demand for money exceptional circumstances the supreme court said there are countless but the state has a clear policy that it wants to apply to its state law claim and you're coming to federal court in order to strip out those provisions of state law that they want to govern their state law claim why isn't that something that can be taken into account as a matter of comedy well your honor the there there's always a difference in state procedural rules and federal procedure was the federal courts have just as much an interest in this is unique to this cause of action and as we did specifically stated to have been done to protect california businesses from abuse and the whole thing is is no five by coming to federal court and and stripping out all those protections but st of all the other protections are not stripped out because the same present protections are found in other court a nd of all these  court you choose a form that seems to be best for your client let me ask you this question looking at carnegie mellon we believe compelling reason or purpose of subsection three or similar should be as the executive software i know that the th circuit is different and just as one of the things where we have a split on the tin circuit i'm looking at others bring court which case you're looking at your honor and looking at the carnegie mellon so ever seen four right c four and that's what our our whole argument is we don't get to the those those discretionary factors unless they have properly have found exceptional circumstance remember that's a done over review very similar ones in every district court with their own there's nothing unique about that and this is classic theory federal court has its own procedures state court has its own procedures there's the idea that they may have better procedures and therefore court can just  substantive effects if we have a pleading in which a that date of the visit is a list if we have a meeting in which the alleged violations of the state claim if you are then sent to state court to any of these special rules have any bearing at that point show them the filing fee what what relevance is it sure they jury now that it's part of a pleading it can be tested with the plaintiff on on the witness stand i i only thought i'll change cases when it turns out to be one hundred and fifty dollars whatever it might be that is now squarely before the court the the plaintiffs along with the other pleading requirement specific pleading requirements of what the violation was and all of those in things which are the police firemen are not men which of the eight was not alleged and no i don't think that's the exceptional circumstance at all i think exceptional circumstances is the forum shopping to remove well surely oh your honor because well i wasn't there and the case was was handled in croker so no that argument was not me back to the matter is i'd like to go back to the question i had before because  i only heard one answer to it and i'd like to know if there's anything further richard is when you at this stage when you go back to state courts saddled with finding on the a d f a and knowing that that section fifty one of says that a violation the a d a s violation of the un or act what's left of these special state procedural protections and a number of filings  doesn't that suggest there wasn't a factual basis for the comity concerns that he identified in his ruling i think you're on to late you could consider it too late but we've pointed out that the damage analysis in the federal courts is wrong and as a matter of if you're going to say it was too late to do that i would say that's a harmless error given the fact that as a matter of commie it was the discretion if you relied on factors that aren't valid or don't have any weight then we have we can't redo it it's got to go back and maybe there could be another assessment but reversible error here because it's clear from the very distinct statements of law made in federal and state court over what is necessary to prove his damages then you have a matter of comedy that should allow for not only the procedural aspects of the statute to be applied by the state courts on state law claims but also you have these issues of what are the damages how how are damages proved up playing and said in the case it's automatic it's not automatic now admits it's not automatic in the reply brief and we have burden of proof is significant you got a jury trial it's entitle to hear evidence regarding the claim for damages in our in our opinion whether or not there was malice all of those issues significantly this should be seen as harmless error because it's clear in the record that there is a conflict between federal and state law on the issue of state law damages then i would say send it back to the court for further consideration under overturn a jury verdict you got to hear of those things thing this is this is highly presidential and has nothing to do with the actual issue before the court finally there are no other cases i couldn't find a single case where a court anywhere said that that its interests are impinged upon because the resources and the quality of the federal bench are somehow incapable of making sure that legitimate cases go forward and abuse of cases don't is just it's just hard to fathom i do believe this is a docket clearing exercise and or which this court has approved the enormous decision saying it is necessary to carry out this important policy principles and so i would ask the court to take a look at it look at the discretion that is happened under the executive a software decision you don't just