next case on for argument is washington national insurance company versus obits group l l c and robert  we would like opec's and mr katzenstein to be put back in the status quo ante which means to obtain the reasonable compensation and monetary sanctions that he would otherwise have been subject to your hon the case itself is over we're just looking at what happened previously and whatever i mean is there any question about your getting the documents back if it's over and you know it would add an a minimum required that opec's receive reasonable compensation for records not just producing the records but having to defend summons that called for more than two hundred and seventy thousand dollars documents and that's what the that's what the corrector are that's exactly right there are i mean at there is no dispute that summons including to seven very very broad requests which washington national and bankers can see go then agreed to withdraw in favor of specific search terms which are point which mr caton seen and complied what that's what resulted in the fifteen thousand pages being produced then they came back and reasserted al something like fifty six dollars gigabytes of data it was every e mail if it had stopped they are correct your honor we would not be here we are here only because because washington national decided to reassert the very request that they had agreed to withdraw and then refused to compensate for st of all they refused to adhere to the original agreement which  to to limit themselves to documents that concerned beechwood this case this was an arbitration recording beechwood re and and therefore we were amenable to producing any documents opec's had that concerned beechwood re in the subsequent summons however they sought documents every e mail that mr caton steen ever wrote and now i just i think it bears emphasis arbitration act provides and they under section seven they could only be compelled to produce documents in the same manner provided by law for securing the attendance of witnesses and the court of the united states so that in t has been hurt to the tune of over two hundred and fifty thousand dollars in not having its objections ruled upon by the district court being punted to the arbitral panel which in turn from anything that an arbitration panel would have ruled so it's not sufficient for us to have to go back to the arbitration panel for relief we say we were entitled to have that relief from the district court so since since this action has the underlying arbitration has been dismissed we ask that this court which has the right the right to to grant equitable relief under the church of scientology versus united states to grant that relief and we would ask that this court give opec's the opportunity to make that motion for relief which the district court refused to hear so the other issue that i wanted to cover in my brief time which i think is an issue that has never been in such a noble issue has never been reviewed by this court is the issue of subject matter jurisdiction i think it is critical because there has never been a case  if there is it doesn't matter but we it is our position that there is no diversity yes there is no diversity jurisdiction because your honor and vaden versus discover bank and indo sure all this court made clear and oh sure that for all remedies under the federal arbitration act the court is to look at the underlying dispute in the arbitration well in sections in the section seven dispute the underlying dispute in the and therefore the world actually is wrong for a different reason we say that he was required to look at the parties to the underlying arbitration and in the parties among the parties to the underlying arbitration  e it washington national was the only non new york city all of the other entities and individuals were residents of new york and this is exactly the type of illogical result that doe sure petition the parties to the petition to compel compliance under section seven then what's going to what happens as in this case is there is only one party that's washington national who could ever come to federal court to seek not only compliance under section seven but confirmation or bake a tour of an arbitration award none of the other parties to that arbitration including bankers can seek or any of the respondents the substantive response or under brave however i will say that there are certain circumstances such as on a motion to compel arbitration where the parties to the petition to compel are the parties to the underlying arbitration in other words there would be actually i would just respectfully disagree because there was a similar case or mez versus way where that is cited in the washington nationals brief which was a complete petition to compel arbitration where judge lynch writing for the nd circuit held that the district court should look to the parties to the petition to compel arbitration and not to the underlying dispute but there they underlying dispute that the parties wanted the court to direct the court to parties to a state court proceeding there was not an underlying arbitration they were the parties to a state court proceeding where there was an extraneous party who would have destroyed diversity jurisdiction and in that context the nd circuit pointed out that that other party was not wasn't in was not an indispensable party because that other employee it was an employment dispute that other employee would not have been party to the underlying arbitration so there are circumstances to break off when the petition to compel that we're aware the underlying dispute that particular if it's a state court proceeding might include parties who would not otherwise be party to the arbitration so i would say but there are no cases that i'm aware of that involve a section seven i'll look oh if a court will permit me i'll look at that style showcase if it's if it's an article i mean section seven case and be happy  petitioner slash helli washington national the federal arbitration act has two parts we got to consider part number one and i accept this like other federal statutes there is talks about the strong policy in favor of arbitration so when you combine the two you go ok when you do need to so show subject matter jurisdiction but what the district court should be looking at and what the district court properly looked at here is to look at a way to get to meet the goals of the f a a while giving appropriate due process and it did so here so you have a situation where what the respondents slash appellants are asking for would undercut that strong federal policy by making to extraordinarily difficult to do what nine u s c seven sense which is if you have an arbitration summons and you need to enforce it you bring it into the district court in which the organ traders were sitting so there are multiple ways this court can get to that subject matter jurisdiction the st is diversity jurisdiction record is clear the parties to the petition that was before judge for candy are diverse now as you well know stivers city plus seventy five thousand dollars  ways you get to the seventy five thousand dollars st the underlying arbitration issue and a one hundred and thirty four million dollars in dispute nd the value of what was being sought here to the court not only to the hunt supreme court decision on that but i would also cite the court to the seton insurance decision which is a district court case that similarly found great in some of the five thousand dollars now that's box one and if the court doesn't like that i got box two which is federal question jurisdiction now there you do look at what is going on in the underlying case in this case in the underlying case there was a rico dispute rico as we all know has federal question jurisdiction that should end the discussion my learned colleague in her reply said well it isn't sufficiently pled or it's not not good enough that's not respectful is standard and there is no  cited for that the rico case the rico claim was never dismissed by the arbitration panel and stayed in the case until the case was ultimately dismissed there are other issues that were raised about whether the arbitration hearing under the arbitration summonses was in new york i believe the factual record is quite clear on that likewise  i think there's no dispute here and i prefer to judge ray costs decisions in the fell cases arbitration summonses are different from subpoenas this was properly done with the hearing date set before three panel members and therefore met all the procedural requirements of nine u s c seven so therefore we then get to two last issues to support subject matter true stiction i haven't read that case point to any comment about that your honor my comment would be that the court does not substitute its judgment for the arbitration panel there was don't dismiss sole of that let me take a step back if i have if i come to the federal court let's say in the in your honour's district court with rico claim  that's my sole basis for jurisdiction and then it gets knocked out then yes the court can say it no longer has jurisdiction and kick me the state wanted to loan not the court has jurisdiction till it gets knocked out that's my point your honor and there was never a decision by the arbitration panel say i don't know about that rico claim is not sufficiently and that's where that decision would have to have been yes under the under the federal arbitration act with all due respect to this court we have to give deference to the arbitration decision that we so i and just the simple fact that the arbitration panel is in the best position to assess whether something is relevant whether something is burned in some whether something might be privilege and here and i point to the arbitration panel's water in this case found that the information sought in the arbitration summonses was relevant and again deference should be given to that which leads to the last issue which is that the issue of fees and costs respectfully there is no basis for this district court correctly found that the arguments raised below by the respondents were meritless frivolous misleading and confounding that doesn't really give a good basis for warning any type of fees nd the remedy if somehow these summonses were improper is the return of the documents that's what the nd circuit said in life receivables and that's what the supreme court said in the church scientology case it's not for this court to suddenly start having remedies that would contradict the american rule which is each side pays for its own fees  and then i do have to address in that context the argument that's been made in the papers in here today that somehow there was an agreement made with the initial set of discovery that certain terms but please note that we reserve the right to revisit this issue at a later date what happened then was as set forth in the record we got therefore there is no basis st of all there is no basis for any remedy because these summonses were properly done but the only remedy here would be a remedy of returning of the documents thank you your honor not possible under current so i generally don't return documents to not parties at the end of a proceeding i would have to discuss with my client about that i've not been asked by any non party to return documents that were provided during the arbitration proceedings question jurisdiction they argued that this was on diversity jurisdiction and it's only in response to our pointing out that there was no difference city that they try to argue rico but in fact only to your argument your view there was no diverse invoke rico and as a as a as a result there is a very substantial body of law in which the courts can look to see whether or not there's a rico claims that you can just throw in the word rico i understand your argument about it was never addressed by the district court but they my point was that they never made any attempt to satisfy any of the elements of rico including there was no allegation of a predicate act there was no allegation of racketeering so are you saying let me make sure  i understand your your argument is let's put it forget to be arbitration just put it in the terms of an everyday so someone brings a rico claim that on its face is for hoes and that's the sole basis for federal jurisdiction you are saying that the federal court has no jurisdiction to say this is a frivolous claim and therefore i don't have jurisdiction over the case but rather the very filing of a frivolous claim deprives the court of even determining whether it has dismissed it was never thrown out the court didn't address it so why doesn't that provide federal subject matter jurisdiction until and unless it is thrown at i would say that the federal court has jurisdiction to determine whether it has jurisdiction and upon looking at the totally frivolous complaint can determine that there is that there is not a sufficient pleading  i'm saying is not that that's not so that in fact this court can look at the face of the demand for arbitration and make the same determination that there is no that the rico the rico is was not