difficulties i was hired and approved by the bankruptcy court as special counsel to ascertain the very issue which led us here today and that was the simple notion  jurisdiction in federal court and i think that's where you want to turn your attention first of course in my opinion they didn't and the other decisions states clearly subject matter jurisdiction is appropriate whenever usury is raised and particularly here not only as under the fence but as an objection to the proof of claim of the bankruptcy proceeding if we don't have any national bank banks that's right so that phrase that that it's plies to a national bank no you cannot apply state law to a national bank i will concede that that's where we are in the state of wall but you can arizona's like every other state  origin of you very probably deuteronomy but i mean it's any amount that is in excess of the amount that the bar or agreed to pay now we have credit cards section eighty five and and i wish i had brought baden with me i apologize to the court for that and i will certainly get so when you allege i used were a claim against the state bank point two five million and we've got two six five million where is the jurisdiction for that we maintain that section eighty five and eighty six provide the exclusive cause of action for usury claims then of course there the follow up with you it was reiterated there is no such thing as a state law claim of usury against the national bank but there is the federal law which can apply to use recharges by state regulated thirteen thirty one jurisdiction thirteen thirty four jurisdictions for goodness sake but court said it did not have subject matter jurisdiction because this was not a matter related to a bankruptcy proceeding it was filed down the hall four days after the plan of confirmation in the bankruptcy court the bankruptcy court had retained jurisdiction for purposes of implementing the plan and it was the debtors plan to file claims against the claimants and the court acknowledged and it was the sole means for funding the plan in other words we went to federal court because we said we were going to federal court the question i suppose you're asking me as did there was complete preemption yes there is that is the conclusion of the law today i do not want to in my opinion say anything else and it should be the wall of federal dispute arises and bankruptcy of federal court takes jurisdiction of the better of federal court setting by reference mates many determinations including one that's critical may i point out to the court the bankruptcy court did hold that with at least respect to one of these loans that is the two million dollar deposit that was made by mortgages limited into cross napoli's bank of the southwest was never made available to the appellant and the appellant was charged interest on the account although she could not make any checks on it and the bankruptcy court did acknowledge that that portion of the claim would be disallowed now the if we paid here's what nobody here's the great white lie of the case and i always think there's a curtain it comes down and if we are successful any amount of the interest that was charged in excess of the w principle and of course states don't want that onerous federal law to apply but the f b i still does that's why it's god's truth relate to the national bank act that's why we brought the kids were brought in as as a was hired to do this i brought it up in bankruptcy court i got this allowed interest on two million dollars as excessive and then i had to go to the federal court and he says we don't have jurisdiction over usury when the federal statutes and law let me do that one thing maybe that will help in my opinion of course it has to be federal jurisdiction of course i know i'm too old not to know the great wall that comes down on  we're presenting very well at other federal questions of whether or not the federal bank was violated and the timing agreements be we maintain we didn't know about or below to well we chose to question mr followers participation made you assume for a moment the utterly impossible that there is such a thing as a good ended up making over five million dollars on it no apologize i didn't understand that the apostrophe on the courts comment i believe the original fall or would still be in this case if the court ruled that the lower court should have considered the question of just isn't done much anymore and i'm wondering why it was john here well what's unusual about i mean ultimately right there's two grounds for the jurisdiction there is related to in the credit question look let's when you look at the federal question jurisdiction you have to look at the complaint what are the well questions and that is that is the unlawful time count not the use recount and what the district court noted and what i think is correct is that when you look at that one count that sort of raises potentially of a federal question there's not facts alleged in the complaint that have anything to do with the predicate acts necessary for there to be a violation of the statute the unlawful unlawful timing that governs you know the banks are the kinds of things where banks says we'll give you a loan but only if you open a checking account and there's just nothing in the complaint that has anything to do with the kind of conduct that's privet so of course and in deciding the jurisdictional question the court has to look to heard what i heard this morning was something about section eighty five in a new case again we need to look at the complaint for the jurisdiction and that section eighty five is i'm hearing about that for the first time this morning all the data i have just asking the question that i legal question that i'd like to have answered so fair enough so i guess let me answer it in two parts one i haven't read the case that's been cited and i don't know what section eighty five what he's talking what's being discussed but there was an argument made appeal that wasn't raised below which was this twelve us eating thirty one dean but in terms of that the federal question grounds that were raised on appeal about that was not one of them also diversity wasn't addressed or a number of grounds that were much police record on christmas nickel and i represent mortgages ltd which is a mortgage banker not a bank and i'm from philadelphia but i don't think i have any problems be kings and i'm prepared to address the cross appeal on the attorney's fees issue where the district court thought because it dismissed on subject matter jurisdiction and obviously didn't have jurisdiction to make any orders i e for attorney's fees  yes but there are one two three really for your honor the loan documents and there's there's just a surfeit of those all have various attorney's fees provisions the notes the deeds trust loan agreements as well then we have the arizona statute a r s twelve three forty want to one which actually has two attorneys fees provisions in there and that's an independent grounds for attorney's fees which where the court may award attorney's fees in an action that arises under contract clearly there are claims five contract action the state use reaction to decision those all clearly are contract based actions then there's another part of twelve three forty want to one honor which is the district court judge never even got into the analysis of whether attorneys fees would be appropriately awarded because the district court by its one sentence in its ruling i don't even have hudson address the differences with your partner to this court about whether the dismissal was for subject matter or whether there was enough of a little bit of subject matter but it really wasn't played in any way and is this court has alluded to your  particular were shadowboxing here the complaints the motions that were filed we don't know what we're fighting the rogue references to federal statutes we don't know how much credibility to g well at least by by the plaintiff or the appellant here and in terms of the briefing does just a little bit of jurisdiction but an immediate dismissal as it's one defendant of four defendants on one for the attorneys if you get your wish right for the sole purpose of allowing the district court to decide that under the ninth circuit precedent that notwithstanding that you've dismissed an action for subject matter dismissed for failure state a claim and i just want a couple quick points one sort of this complicated and interesting analysis is not something that was raised on appeal by you count so it's not an issue you know it's something we're thinking about t in that court in that decision and i really want i thought i made it clear before that language was there but also they talk about state court actions are actions against state chartered institutions and references made and i authorizes federally insured state banks to charge certain interest and fees and pre amps state laws to the contrary the provisions of eighteen thirty one day are quite similar to the provisions of the national bank act twelve believe any of the circuit but i am and i can't but think back in that case with the national debt and but they discussed the situation because this has come up again and again how can a state chartered ban be subject to the national bank act and usury is not what the forest i say a simple federal deposit insurance agency by statute gives the federal government authority over state chartered banks but with all of these banks doing business in every state it is almost silly to say that the federal courts would not have and should not have exclusive jurisdiction of course they should i sense you know want to go that far but i think that the court below should have well first of all what this related to a bankruptcy proceeding meaning thirteen thirty isn't this related to a bankruptcy proceeding even