we're requesting that this court reverse summary judgment that was and the underlying case against plaintiff's robinson's billion stay and alina hernande and reversed the dismissal of the debate just cause of action there are four reasons why the court should reverse the summary judgment one is that the district court ignored evidence of the documents were recorded in violation of the boss documents that was entered and the prior appeal reversed the dismissal of the thoughts documents cause of action in its entirety and false documents or forgery but documents well that this chord subsequent order made it very clear what's left in the case what do you think's left in the case it's a false documents cause of that what's not what do you think is left in the case i want to answer my question not don't tell me this theoretical thing or let me be specific the court's order says this court's reversal of count one was limited to petitioners claims of robo signing and forgery and most of your effort appears to be to figure out a way to pull in a false documents claim based on other parts of the statu that consistent with the court's order but i didn't ask that question did i ask how is it consistent with the court's order the court's order which came out subsumed to the mandate couldn't be more explicit i just read it to you and you're busy telling me disregard that there's more left in the case and i'm trying to figure out how and why how did it how you should disregard that water which was the order on our petition for appeal at the down island the class heard of acacia motion around it i think you need to face it head on we're not likely to consider anything other than what the previous panel has said has left in the case of just kind of how it is you lost on everything else well got a decision from this court saying their way of doing that decision isn't directly challenge you just wait a couple years and try to bring it up again that's not going to happen we are bound by the decision of the prior panel are we not mandate and it was noted that law the case is intended to eliminate judicial inefficiency however it's a discretionary rule and because it is a discretionary rule it's not it's not so it's not so hard and fast even if you mean that's the standard why should we exercise discretion to add things to your case that the prior panel didn't didn't keep the prior panel didn't keep in and that in the mandate if you review the the mandate it goes through the four grounds that the district court the the court first determined that the type of documents that were issue was that mandate that you're trying to rely upon issued jeanne twelve twenty fourteen your honor and we're talking about an order that was filed on march twenty fifth two thousand and sixteen so tell me what happened twenty fourteen is a really good explanation for why we should disregard the order entered two years later i don't think why that were raised on that appeal and did you seek on bank review of the order that was entered last year yes your honor did you get it did you get on back then denied without without any comment did you in that petition for rehearing that you filed did you say to the panel i think you misunderstood what you did before yes and they didn't change it so it seems like they don't think they misunderstood what they did before they could have revised the second order but they didn't so it suggests that they don't think they misunderstood their own action so here we are with that action so why should we think you've got a better handle on what judges to sima fled sure and when intended then judges that shima by jury and when decided they had been and what they intended i mean i don't understand what you're trying to do and accomplish what you're trying to accomplish in trying to say we should disregard what that panel decided was its own decision i think you're going to be better off accepting that was their decision and figure out what's left of the case and why we should do something different in what's left of the case but i'm only one of three so if you want to try to persuade my colleagues that you've got something beyond robo signing and forgery good luck with that but there are other reasons and incorporated within the rover signing a forgery arguments especially if you use the definition that the district court applied to the  either signing somebody else's name i mean that's classic forgery and the definition of forgery or trying to offer to us really becomes any false document so even if this and acknowledge us with regard to some of your claims that well yes that person was the person who signed no we don't have any evidence that the person whose signature appears there was signed by other than that person or with that person's authorization so this is basically an attempt to turn forgery into false documents generally is that correct and if the answer is yes why should we do that when the statute has provisions for false documents claims that are now out of the case based on the prior panel's decision why should we let forgery mean forgery reason the definition used by the district court basically is a criminal statutes criminal definition and because the statute under which the claims are brought is a didn't and so i understand all that i just set that up for you by saying you're trying to use a definition other than that that's been used by this court by the arizona courts and i for well accept your characterization of the district court's definition but the question i ask you is why should we use that broad definition that sweeps in all the four false document type clime why shouldn't we just use forgery to mean what forgery is commonly understood to mean and the answer you're giving me is well the district court had this definition which doesn't seem to be a national my question i know you're citing the district court as a sort of your definition my question is why should we use that definition and not take forgery to mean what forgeries usually understood to mean that's the question i'm trying to post the definition is appropriate in the context in which you're viewing these documents which is forged documents and or their forged or robo signed documents under the documents statute and in order to have a robo signing claim but don't you have to convince us that when the prior panel meant forgery they meant to this thing that the district court came up with not the thing that usually people mean when they say forgery that  though the mandate says that you can pursue forgery right and so if you're going to say this is still in the case then when we try to figure out what forgery meant in the mandate or in the order that's the most recent order from our court we have to assume to greet with you that our court met forgery to mean not the thing that the arizona courts and our court have usually said but instead this definition the district court came up with correct and it can also be people signing their own name to a high volume of documents which is exactly what we had here with jennifer hamlin and with the what's illegal about signing a lot of documents the thing that is a legal here is that these documents make false statements but now you're adding something that's not the definition of forgery usually a document containing a false statement is not usually understood to be a false i mean a forged document or the district court definition is there any reason to assume that our court in two thousand and six sixteen the more recent one use that definition that the district court used in the second order that in the two thousand and sixteen order where our court said the claims that are left are robo signing and forgery is there any reason to think that when we said forgery we didn't mean forgery in the usual way that our ones here are otherwise invalid because they have signatures that are made by assigning officer murders who is fargo or bank of america or bank of new york mellon or new beneficiary who in turn turn around and appointed another trustee for foreclosure purposes and then who issued a notice or trustee sale those all are based on a robo signing where the person didn't there was no legal authority by that point for them to sign on behalf on mars is the beneficiary because if you look at the reports that were submitted as part of the export a record and i can give you this talks about forgery as it's customarily understood you're basically trying to make out a case that the reference to robo siding which is not itself a violation of the arizona statute gives you permission to bring back all the false statement type theories that the court seemed to have determined had already been waived and were no longer in the case all through the word robo signing i mean a man and you can make that argument but in my right without understanding that we're not talking about forgery anymore ye defendants show that those cases were a breach of contract cases they were motions to dismiss and except for one one is on appeal then as i believe could be on the court's will argument all or most of the cases cited by defendants pertain to different kinds of causes of action breach of contract or something else i'm asking you is there anything that says that this cause of action falls outside of a clause that case cited a brief that includes itself a citation to a case where you know we don't check out all the second and third level citations on our own so if there's a case you want to write a story to look to please give us the citation to th on appeal to this circuit that court the california district court noted that the kim vs shell point partners matter which is two thousand and sixteen one two four one five four one held that the notice provision did not bar a teela claim because the duties were statutory and didn't arise under the deed of trust and that's the same kind of situation that we have here is because this is a statutory cause of action and it did the duty to was represented by the same law firm as the robinsons and silva's i've never heard of that as a basis for supplemental jurisdiction do you have any other basis for supplemental jurisdiction the authority is the in or a caterpillar case that was cited in our  and what proposition in that case are you that case allows amendment of a multi district litigation complaint to add additional plenty but there has to be jurisdiction right and so what is the basis for supplemental jurisdiction do you can you say that it arises out of the same case or controversy as the other actions are yet facts the same underlying facts yes you are same underlying facts different documents theory or same underlying facts same theory ok so i think you need to be the same underlying facts do you have anything that says the same documents were an issue in both cases each each plane that had a different set of documents so different properties forever correct and so  arizona plaintiffs the case could have been filed separately within the district of arizona it just wasn't filed that way but it could only be filed in federal court if there is federal jurisdiction right and i don't understand the basis for federal jurisdiction it's a state law claim i didn't see anything saying there was enough amount in controversy was your basis for federal jurisdiction over the badges case diversity and where do you say anything about the amount of controversy th theoretically it could be could meet the amount of controversy requirement if you look at the total value of the crime is that anywhere in the record that we can look that we could find it i can't cite to you off the right as i stand here today so i had to double check i believe it is well we'll give you two minutes for rebuttal if you have it here and can find it that would be helpful thank you representing certain other lenders as well with me taking twelve minutes in my counsel taking a are you dividing issues or what is the difference between the two well he's the one issue that i do not go think seven individuals who are seeking the statutory penalty of five thousand dollars under this arizona statute thirty three dash four twenty which you know the purpose is to protect property owners from having their title clouded and discourse recognized there's only four means specifically set forth in the statute where there can be a violation forgery groundless pnas material misstatement or false claim force quote otherwise invalid but is this court recognizes there's only one area that's particularly pertinent for this review and that's forgery and it's for the reasons alluded to because this court originally affirmed the dismissal of the consolidated amended complaint which had twelve claims in it and the court below the district court had granted to dismissal on all of the well of this court affirmed dismissal on eleven of the twelve and reverse the one claim the thirty three four twenty claim and with the limitation that it was limited only to robo signing and forgery and by the way i think when it meant by robo signing forgery was a collective term that the forgery which is the violation could have been done through perhaps an act of robo signing because as the court recognizes the robo signing in and of itself is not a violation there's something illegal about it fact i'm sure what the definition of it is but  it's a means to explain perhaps how that forgery was done and by the way not only did the court say six politically in its refusal to i mean in its clarification about the mandate that it was limited it went on to say to the extent the petitioner is now seek to challenge the n d l of court's dismissal of count one as to allegations beyond robo signing and forgery that challenges ways because it wasn't raised in the first appeal the the district court was quite thorough and meticulous in going through on summary judgment all of the evidence that was proffered in regard to the forgery count and it granted summary judgment on all of the plaintiff's claims that challenge documents were forged because literally there was not a piece of evidence i mean there was not one shred of evidence that any of these documents were forged as that definition is commonly understood which the court the district court really took the criminal statute it's thirteen dash two zero zero one parin seventeen definition for forgery which essentially is the fault spanking the fault of alter cation the faults completion of a document and said under that definition of forgery which is usually the common understanding there literally was no evidence that it was signed by somebody who wasn't the person it purported to be or that the document was altered in some way it whatsoever and the plank this pretty much acknowledge that i mean they they do not take issue that these documents were forged in any way as that definition is understood because there was no evidence in fact the evidence below that was there is that these documents were executed the right people they were no arrived and properly in front of people and what not what the plaintiffs want to do because the forgery anything beyond forgery was waived was to try to force this idea that false statements in a document or somehow a forgery and that's just not the case and not only is that not the case that if you look at the case law we've cited it repeatedly whether it's the district courts and i mean the state courts in arizona united states supreme court in the ninth circuit has repeatedly said that forgery is really goes to the genuineness or the authenticity of the document and this refers to this court to two nine circuit cases on that one is u s representation known to be false so the distinction wording to the court is between a document signed by a third person using the signature of another that's a forgery versus a document signed by an authorized person but containing  promise or statement that is known to be false or did not bear on the authenticity of the document i ask you about jurisdiction over devout just so putting aside the m t l statute you made arguments about the empty else that you were putting that aside could that case have just been filed in federal district court in arizona yes it could have been in it in fact i think you know there is n p l ended up with i think close to one hundred cases some of those had been filed in the district to be in arizona but then transferred over to the s you're saying there is a federal on its own with nothing else going on so i may be you're saying it was supplemental jurisdiction i'm not sure what you're saying now forget there are no say there are no other cases it about this issue and you just try to file the badges case in federal court in arizona would there be i don't know you mean there could be in with the diversity on me on down not understanding the question you mean to can there be jurisdiction in the sense of can i thought you were asking whether they could file and separate case in federal court well you can only i mean ok you can file it but it's going to get dismissed if there's no jurisdiction so my question is is there federal jurisdiction over the bad just case if we just look at it on its own and forget about the other guy because there is no the bad this case all they did was the court when it assumed a bad just walked into the clerk's office and filed a complaint based on all the allegations here would there be jurisdiction over that complaint that we understand the argument being made they didn't go through the process properly but is there is the federal court in arizona have jurisdiction badges could have brought i would say probably not and the reason is because the amount in controversy for devout uses individual claim would not exceed the seventy five thousand dollars is that because the home is not worth that much or because he's only seeking five thousand dollars in penalties what is the amount of controversy the amount of controversy if there is a statutory penalty for a violation of five thousand dollars i think you can collect actual damages but the actual damages would be related to the value of the home it would be related to what damages the fault filing or recorded document cause to the property and somehow and by the way there's nothing on the record that there were any damages at all incurred anybody was all and then they were only seeking the five thousand filed their originally because they had diversity but some of them there wasn't there originally a federal claim also there was class actions also there were six i believe class actions well but what was just reading this question is good was there a federal claim in some point that started these cases in federal court i mean is that how they got removed in the first instance because of the claim is only five thousand dollars statutory damages you're never going to get to the amount  twelve count complaint so there were other causes of action but those were discharged along the way those were dismissed was one of those causes of action in the federal court cause of action great federal federal law cause of action because  i'm if i don't remember i don't mean to dance and i don't know here but i think this there may be at this point we don't want to question the jurisdiction as to all the other cases but i'm not sure why do bad uses jurisdictional bases would be the same as what everybody else had and if he hadn't been the case before nothing would preclude him from filing the federal cause of federal law cause of action that have been dismissed by other parties so i said i do recall judge people were asking about those issues of the jurisdiction of the federal jurisdiction of the all of the cases and we briefed it below and we did brief it on the issue that there was diversity based on the amount of controversy what i can't remember is whether it was based on that single count suppose al first you can let me know whether anything like this actually happened was there any request to the court i mean the court ordered an amended complaint to be filed what has come to be called the  c yes was there any request made to the court or any any permission granted by the court to add additional plaintiffs at that time when that so the complaint now your complaint really isn't articulate as a no federal jurisdiction for this cause of action it appears to me to be articulated that permission wasn't granted by the court to amend the complaint to add additional plaintiffs and to the extent this is an m d l which frankly baffles me because everybody is in arizona but if it did go through the multi district litigation panel and so if a new claim is filed in texas for example that texas person couldn't go to arizona and file it they need to have it routed through the m d l what's confusing about this case is that the badges is arizona and would seem to have no question about the district of arizona's jurisdiction if you can get over the federal hurdle but if permission wasn't requested of the court there's a question as to whether you can amend the complaint without obtaining that permission is that the core of your challenge is exempted because there were like i said there were plan transferred into the n d l in the badges case there was no case the court ordered all these cases to play if they asked the place really as a matter of judicial economy to bring it as a consolidated amended complaint bring them all in one document when the planes did that they just added the badges as a party to that consolidated amended complaint without leaving court or having any pedal with any pending federal actions so it was never in the end you know in the first place and because fourteen zero seven should be strictly construed in terms of what the n d o jurisdiction is there was no pending federal action in fourteen no seven it's pretty clear at the end the i was limited to only consider pretrial i mean but that's what the problem there is you've got a case from texas that winds up being in a courtroom in phoenix right but but the phoenix judges authority is finite yes well if you've got a case that could have been filed in phoenix in the first place you don't have so much a multi district litigation problem but it is an m d proceeding and so you need to touch at least one of the two bases either the m t l process or i think judge could have directly given permission to add parties but you're telling me that didn't happen did not happen and by the way when judge steele were dismissed one of the first go around that was appealed here for debate is who was in the consolidated plane he didn't dismiss it on the merits he said i'm not going to  i'm dismissing bad news because you were named properly as a plaintiff on me ask you about that and i'm realizing i'm taking your colleague's time so he may have something to say about it too but it is if we would decide on the merits with regard to all the other plaintiffs that claim is gone is there really any reason to discuss to badger separately because the substance of the debate just climb is exactly the same as the substance of the others as best i can discern absolutely just the judge he over decided i don't have to get to that badges but if we get to the issue from the others from our perspective it might be easier to deal with them all at once and you have no problem with us deciding that substantively they're all covered the same we have no problem i think when judge gilbert was saying essentially is i can't decide to bad just because i don't have jurisdiction and so that's not he didn't get to it he just felt they didn't have jurisdiction on it and we brief that below for him as well thank you good morning in may please the court my name is joseph you know it's because i'm here on behalf of the defendants in the robinson and still that's cases other than murders i don't have a dog in the fight as to the budgets the court asked the question about jurisdiction and so i had a chance to take a look at  can't speak to that that helps us understand how we got here i appreciate that seven separate class action file in seven states they ended up getting consolidated by judicial panel and they all went to arizona and he ordered consolidation after a couple of years into one cons only the basis for like a forgery but also on the notice point and i did want to address judge clifton's questions about favorable law for the plaintiff's first there are three cases cited in footnote twelve of our brief were courts applied the nos provision to statutory claims very similar to these loan on the origination side and there are typically disclosures that the lender has to give to the bar before making the loan about the interest rate and the loan terms and so that wouldn't be if you had a dispute with your lender about the disclosures that were given it would not involve actions that arise grounds if you could if we wind up concluding on the grounds that apply to everybody absolutely i did not overlap with mr broken but we agree and i think the points of conceded there is no evidence of forgery and so we would win on that ground as well this is an alternative ground the only other point i would make is point of silvis judge hill borg and in summary judgment against her because she had released her claims she entered into a settlement with bank of america money was paid to her there was a very broad release that applied to claims that she brought her career blart involving the service in he loan her property her deed of trust and she settled those claims plaintiff's argument in this court is that was not my intent to release those claims and she put various extrinsic evidence before the district court agreement and also it goes further broader than some integration causes i have seen and says also that no party may use extrinsic evidence to show the intended to try to construe this agreement so that that clause is extremely strong in our provision in barring that mr broach and said i also want to direct the court there are direct there's direct evidence of what the panel in the end is showing the mandate men from its first decision so if the court were to look at page seven eighty two of the of the mers one decision it's seven fifty four f third at seven eighty two the court says the complaint alleges that these documents were notarized and blank and quote robo signed with forged signatures and then it paid seven eighty three to seventy four we had moved to dismiss that claim on the ground that it wasn't represented to have signed the document did not sign the document another allegation was that michael basco did not sign the document there was another allegation that a docking was notarized and blake and so forth and so on another allegation that many of the signatures appear visibly different than one another so those are the kind of fort claims that we typically understand to be within the the ambit of forgery and why i believe the course correctly concerned that that the mandate has limited the plaintiff's claim to that and there has been no evidence of that it's a summary judgment was appropriately and on that ground are twenty forty eight twenty fifty two twenty fifty three five three twenty fifty seven twenty sixty one three twenty sixty five and was the badge as part of it or was that all before  basically issued an order this said file a consolidated aminah complaint that covers all the players by a certain date which we did it we included say anything about adding additional plaintiffs it is not something different between consolidating plaintiffs the defined term people already in front of them and somebody from the outside there's no reason i can think of why permission couldn't have been sought maybe it didn't occur to anyone but it doesn't sound like he was going back to the forgery issue and the citation to the united states versus price and the two examples that are given and they're related to forgery where the document is signed by someone who is they are signing their name  they don't have authority to design that particular document g s and an analogy is like if property owner gives a special power of attorney to x to sign with words and deeds to transfer his property and then a property owner transferred his property sign it his own signature on a warranty deed to be then x comes along after that and saw as a warranty a forgery it's invalid because it's an excess of the power given by the power of attorney but if the person signing his own name that's not forgery as the first as forgeries commonly understood and defined by at least some cases from this court under the united states versus price case which was decided by this court it's an example of the board's checks it's the same it's same type of example as the second example of forgery set forth in united states versus property except price and we should look at price to decide whether the argument you're making fit within the definition of forgery is recognised by price  was evidence that these documents if you put the word forged in your statement it loses meaning because it requires acceptance of your definition of forged so you're not contending that there was evidence that the persons whose name appeared on the document did not themselves apply that signature or authorized the application of the signature you're claiming that there was something wrong with the authority they a third of asserted to be permitted to sign that is that it wasn't really a murder is authority to sign but the youth signature itself does not appear to be in question as to any of the cases before us is that correct that's correct  so only if we accept this broader definition of forgery as there are an argument to be made that that should cause us to reach to reverse the summary judgment there  the actual factual evidence that supports the reversal under that definition is found in the plane is that sort of record and the tables were attached to marie mcdonald reports which is  authenticity of the signature as to do without authenticity of the documents and thank you how so we understand your argument and your over your time so thanks both sides for the arguments the case is submitted and we are joined for the day