the statute issue here that residence is not prime of facia evidence of citizenship starting in cantor versus warner lambert the plaintiff conceded that residency was diverse at the time of removal as such though one of the fifteen factors for determining citizenship was undisputed and it was the only fact on the record this court ruled that that was not sufficient to establish citizenship under section thirteen thirty two the same statute here quote section thirteen thirty two speaks of citizenship not of residency to be a citizen of a state and natural person must first be a citizen of the united states the natural person state of  is then determined by her state of domicile not her state of residence the same ruling terrorists versus bankers life in casualty no removal jurisdiction where plaintiff conceded quote his nine seventy two residency in the court said one thousand nine hundred two residency not his citizenship and certainly not his citizenship at the time of the filing of the action what was the stipulation you proposed in the court accepted so that you would obligated to respond to the discovery requests by plaintiff what that what we've agreed to your honor was that the contact information that was found in our files that the record evidence was we didn't want didn't speak didn't speak the residence or citizenship it to residence spencer and you argued to the court that was sufficient to satisfy plaintiff's need so they shouldn't be permitted to pursue that discovery you know throughout your honor we stated repeatedly that we did not believe that this would be sufficient to establish citizenship but that this was the information the court that the plaintiff wanted to call from our records the court set we were emphatic through effort that's not all the information they want to call from iraq no doubt where they wanted they wanted th they wanted to classless they wanted yet the records that we had from the employment files of various people we offered that their theory was and this was their theory that the residency would be sufficient to establish the citizenship citizenship we said  court said no mr compass position actually my client's position is a reasonable position and you're going to accept that stipulation right to be clear we were never suggesting that that would be sufficient quite the contrary but hang on hang on i think that the point you made just a second ago i appreciate that that wasn't your representation but i thought that that you said just a minute ago that that's what plaintiffs thought that that was going to be sufficient and in fact my reading of the transcript something their arm was twisted a bit i didn't see plaintiffs conceding that this would do it for them actually you make a distinction that's important that's correct your honor so our position was that this would not be sufficient but rather than go through privacy issues and such relating to personal information concerning former employees years ago we would so stipulate but to answer your question your honor the stipulation was that the last contact information found in our files which could be from years ago could be a decade ago it was a california contact address for two thirds of the class and you suggested to the court that was sufficient to meet the plane just needs and the court accepted that proposition and yet now you're arguing that's not sufficient my having trouble understanding why it is that doesn't advice at best sending it back to the district court so plaintiffs can do the discovery that you insisted needed even though you weren't prepared to give that fact and clear that it was not our position that that would be sufficient to but you wouldn't give them other information you didn't want to give them the names are they going choir's a citizenship themselves what are they supposed to do going to where not of this is we tendered a stipulation and it was accepted by the judge and ordered by the judge the way to find a way way way way way way we're not the decision maker the judge came up with this by himself or did you offer it up we offered it and if you offered it up isn't it fair for the court to infer well that must be sufficient because otherwise why would they be wasting my time like this there's no way the cork of inferred that we were in phatic in the record that we did not believe that residen would be sufficient to establish that it's now what was your basis for denying additional information in response to plaintiffs request because we're going to series of objections to discovery that was tendered your honor including the privacy of the individual class members or former employees of the company forgive me but really was there some other alternative prior to that other than their discovery requests because now it seems to me you left them no path whatsoever but again it's not that we left no path we offered objections based upon privacy the california constitution a number of different bases we suggested that to avert producing private information from these files we would offer a stipulation as to that only went halfway that's what the court ordered ok in response all right and who knows when a hodgepodge of dates ok so i think i misunderstood what you just said or maybe read in when you said a minute ago this was this was requested of us there was discovery requested of you the stipulation was not a question of you was it or do have that wrong the stipulation was not requested i guess we suggested that as a means to avoid the production of private information but i want to be real clear at no time quite the opposite did we suggest that this would be sufficient for our position is and remains today the question of citizenship is a complex individualized question part with fifteen different factors as the night surface repeatedly held residency is not enough as we sort of blow residency is not can you point me to some place in the record where you told the you so that's where we are so what the what's trial court then did with this information is that it's it overtly said while i acknowledge this is not enough to establish jurisdiction in the first instance under the citizen ship stiction i'm going to use a different standard for establishing an exception to the jurisdiction even though the exact same verbiage appears in both places within the statu that has multiple problems for you mean the presumption of continuing to you know the question are you referring to in the first instance you have to have citizenship before it continues forward so the point was the court the district court below acknowledged what was before him would not be enough to establish the court's jurisdiction kava which by the way is is undisputed right it's simply not disputed that that this exists the question then was what's the test for finding reception  abstention from kept in the court in target of the same terms citizen in a much more really broad way to create the exception the cafe which has two problems first of all when the same term is used in the same statute indeed the same subsection of the same statute it is presumed to mean the same thing point one point two this statute was adopted against aids wall of case law judicial determination is that residence does not equal citizenship yet the court said i'm going to use the word citizenship which congress chose to me residence in this context in the context of this shooting favored kaffir jurisdiction he completely reversed the presumptions of cafe cafe is favored federal jurisdiction it's exceptions are to be narrowly construed to construe the same word it used in both instances differently and in a reflecting the intent to favor the exercise of federal jurisdiction over class actions with interstate ramifications what are the m and or state ramifications here yes the cafe is set up to have minimal diversity requir kathlyn merely requires that either a defendant be diverse from the class members or any period of class member be diverse from the forum state so it's a minimum diversity requirement under cafe here and the whole point of this class action fairness act is the court recognized that a lot of these class actions involve citizens of multiple states what's interesting here is the only evidence before this court you know the court sets up but it is the interstate revocation the fact that some of the individuals may currently are at the time of filing live in a different state that and also because that affects interstate commerce because the people we may be saying the same thing the people involved in litigation involve multiple states so yeah i mean congress is sort of defined with the interstate connection is here through this minimum diversity requirement so i'm missing that in the employees that work for k f c making minimum wage and traveling across states paying more fees on transportation i don't think that's the nature of what the court below thought of the continuing doma sile issue the state of citizenship at the time of removal of the putative class member right that these people ten years ago gave a contact address in california and four or five years ago worked for at least time for a long time we don't know in california doesn't answer the question of it costs a lot of money to move out of state so so we just don't have that here that's the point your honor and and so for example in longer agone what the court did is of the knowledge that even though the class was defined as people purchased vehicles in california registered them in california which by the way is one of the elements of citizenship it's on its face there the court even says people can live in california within that class but not be a u s citizen so it's a complex undertaking to determine what the citizenship is of anyone let alone two thirds of a class not that complicated but it's not that complicated what is the authority for proof of u s citizenship unless it refers only t honor it was in order in may i step briefly i have the page open and i'm and i'm looking at the pages seventy to seventy three of the records but in particular page seventy of the record beginning at line two were judge who says the district court so why don't we do this i will find that the defendants offer sufficient at this point in time to avoid or to resolve the discovery dispute now and so that's different because the stipulation was just about residency but if it's sufficient to avoid the discovery dispute you ask for a whole lot more than residency in the discovery requests that's a correct on a we asked for not just a class list but contact information e mails everything we need needed to we we hope anyway to establish every aspect necessary to establish an exception under the home in the local  delayed is not the what would that would be one option in till we got the data we would really know what to do with it but that's certainly the most cost effective and efficient and and as we know from dupes in other cases that's a perfectly acceptable way to proceed and in fact ok i don't interrupt your i'm wondering about be careful what you wish for if you prevail at this point and go for cause that was your plan i think that was your plan you had a very different plan for getting the evidence you need to establish what you need for this exception to cough it jurisdiction so i'm i'm concerned frankly about what outcome you're really looking for here because on the on the one hand if you go forward isn't this going to be somewhat wobbly for you you mean in terms of if we go back to district court and conduct discovery you know if you don't have to go back to the discord and conduct discovery then how come you're you're remaindered in this proceeding so that's your request yes your honor is that the that the order granting the we have we have case law he's right we have case all the talk so that you have to have some evidence what's your evidence will not a stipulation given stipulation it's also the employment it's also the fact of employment i mean that gets you doesn't it you've got evidence of residence of folks who worked currently or previously for k f c in california and out i don't think it's much of a stretch to think that folks who are in that income bracket are living and not commuting across state lines no money but that doesn't get you that right that's just resident so what evidence is there of intent to remain well your honor we would we would actually we would we go back ten years we have we have addresses of people going back ten years who are still employed who are still employed he says during the class period so we're so right now we have admission that we have people who are working for years this is just at least but the stipulation only says at least and you've got the risk of some of the people moving out of state and you've got the reality that at least some of them are probably not citizens so is there enough there for us to to say that the district court's finding wasn't clearly erroneous or that there wasn't that the evidence wasn't insufficient i think clearly it was not alone and you're on the record fell in when he laid this decision  this discovery dispute and i think if we can go forward he goes on to say enough i'm wrong and if we you know then he talks about this initial motion to remain and clearly contemplating that if there's some problem we can come back  represents can go back to some more discovery get what we wanted and and briefly if i may say privacy is in wage in our case this is not a big deal protective orders are run of the mill so the hence my question about what is it you really wishing was order and we go ahead and proceed in state court with the defendants argue that the they told the district court at the time that the stipulation wouldn't be sufficient involved but there was the response oh well then we're going to need more because defendants not going to let us get away with this when the time comes but it was something like that your honor we wanted more we wanted the discovery because i won't say that we foresaw exactly this but we did for and that's what we're looking at these types of cases if we accept what the defense is offering here we have it's exactly what i think your honor alluded to in the name undergone is that we have an exceptionally difficult circumstance for anyone seeking to take advantage of what congress said and we hear how narrow it is from from defense how narrow these exceptions are but it's no more narrow than the statutory mandate we have another exception contained in the statute interest which is specifically a state law enforcement action on behalf of the state of california it cannot apply extra territorially if i do find it difficult to imagine the flint water crisis in the mason case is a great everything that they they have all the contact information they have their social security number everything which the state of california the federal government mandates that employer must maintain they have all of that and they came forward with one person and i think thank you i'll be brief obviously first of all the superior court case in california stayed secondly without question we objected throughout both at the time of the discovery dispute and when the briefing occurred that this would not be sufficient pursued on a claim it's defined by the citizen ship of the people at the time of her move all for which there is not evidence your honor in terms of is there enough here now that the court acknowledged below there wouldn't be enough to establish jurisdiction under the citizenship standard or to feed it and draw a new standard to defeat jurisdiction there's clearly not enough evidence here importantly there are fifteen factors that go into determining citizenship as the court did in my own dragon it referred to the sprint in re text messaging litigation and said this is a way to prove up a case and that involved a situation where that the plaintiff engaged in sampling engaged in questionnaires concerning continuing intent to remain in the state and such that would be the method or a method that the plaintiffs might prove there's a rich body of the case law on us that we understand there are substantially over your time thank you your honor thank you