time is a continuation of the role and the shad borne the case which went to the united states supreme court which many of the plaintiffs in this case were plaintiffs at the united states supreme court where the fender arbitration is the first case that has been tried after the shed borne case as a court is aware tracing the panel despite the fact that supreme court issue fifty page opinion because what what what the issue in this particular case is is whether the motion to can farm that was pursing mr farrow's client should be heard in federal court or court in the facts are sensually uncontested that i asked for eighty million dollars and they awarded me ten million dollars i mean ten ten ten thousand dollars and the ten thousand dollars that they awarded me was to pay me because they wouldn't force the president of parsing to come to new orleans and test before the arbitration panel asked for another day and time but in any and then the issue that we're talking about today is on the jurisdictional mile and as a court is aware this is apparently well developed area of the law which that this circuit has had not had the opportunity to see big to it but in essence the issue is whether it's the ten thousand dollar war that establishes the basis for the jurisdiction or whether it's the eighty million dollars or a war requests that i may get and the law will be quite frank with you it is split among the various circuits and i think i'll have the task of trying to draw a line through the various issues in the fist circuit to develop what the law should be we all agree that the federal law does not set forth a federal calls about action adri with that today but i got to tell you until my told me that after the arbitration award was done i was surprised but in any event the f a a does not present a federal question so the only way you're going to stab reassures diction of that is through if pursing has its way but there is diversity was over seventy five thousand dollars would make it subject to federal jurisdiction and i think in this court attempting to arrive at a conclusion as to how this rule should be applied given the split in circuits are i what i asked the court focused on several things the first one in iraq was under judge ali's case and i know he remembers auto remo association case and it would make this case them for a second because let's assume you know the fifth circuit as well suppose i had come into court and filed a motion to compel arbitration and then you got the ten thousand dollar award  the argument is that there's no cure it's fiction because it's below the jurisdictional amount the word is below that it seems to me we would we you can't have both rules co existing in  judge mills backyard over there in mississippi hits the nail right on the head if you had to write into a brief that supports our position is the busby case because it's a motion to confirm in a couple of months back and it hits the nail right on the head in terms of saying that when it is the party that has the lawsuit then that jurisdiction is controlling and that's exactly what happened here that they filed the motion to confirm and there's no case there's no case that sunday that the jurisdictional amount as alleged and their petition is not controll now i'll jump the gun a little bit and deal with the motion to vacate because this company and this lawsuit in response to the the what they fall after we realized we were in the wrong place action no question about that when it's below seventy five thousand dollars now so i stand here today say and i just want to be in the right place and that's really what this is about today is whether or not the federal court or the state court is the right place for an award less than than seventy five thousand dollars on a motion to vacate which is not really before the court filed it as a counter claim in this proceeding but the district court properly ruled that the counter claim is irrelevant for purposes of the side in this motion in more of a defendant's counterclaim does not request the court reopen arbitration proceedings the second one is the important part because under the third category a potential ways to open an arbitration proceeding the remain proceeding is one of them and we did not about that miss jones but we have in this country a state a system of state and federal courts which is very complex and it's not the most efficient way to do you know question them behind your back and you had you just filed a lawsuit rather than they're jumping the gun and getting into arbitration first that would have been in federal court or there would ha ve been subject to removal in federal court jurisdiction so you're not really ousting the state courts something they should have had to begin with right i agree with you one hundred percent is the most efficient way to do it is just stop confirmation case it's not even a vacation case it's an intervention case by one of the commissioner of securities in that area and other than it citing  corps to look at the united states supreme court case of they're within just a minute bad and they discovered by fifty six u s forty nine and the court had to deal with some of the issues that we're dealing with here and it's a close decision i think it's a five four decision of which goes in our direction in it and it deals with looking through other words in arbitration proceeding do you look through from what is alleged in their complaint which was ten thousand dollars to what i have alleged involved trace and complain of eighty million i got it because it's a pretty gross disparity but that's the question is what is the legal basis for a look and from what's alleged in that complaint to the totality of the case and then that bad in case there's a lot of argument in the end in the sense is that you look at the totality of it you don't look just at the complaint that you go in and you look at the fans and the supreme court help you look at the original complaint this fall and the arguments kind of went well if they had bob first it have been a federal call back and they said no woulda coulda should've this is the way that it came down state court is residual in other words and this what the way that this country works is that if this is not specifically about it provided for by the constitution or by statute then those powers rest with the with  court let me start with with the value case that mr price just referred to that case has nothing to do with the situation for us that was a case involving a question of federal question jurisdiction not me not amounting controversy johns i think you put your finger exactly on on the problem with the position position taken by mr price and his clients had this issue risen first prior to the arbitration in the context of either a motion to compel arbitration or a motion to enjoin an arbitration there clearly would have been federal jurisdiction this circuit has as spoken in the web case and in others and made one hundred percent clear to you do with the general principle that you look in the face of the  and do the face of the complaint says that the value of this case is ten thousand dollars well i would respectfully just disagree right to the face of my complaint which i filed which was a complaint to confirm arbitration sets forth very clearly that the amount of controversy is eighty million dollars we indicate in our complaint that there's diversity jurisdiction in excess of seventy five thousand dollars we indicate that the underlying arbitration claim involved eighty million dollars and we seek in our prayer an order confirming the arbitration award and declaring that we are not liable to these plaintiffs for the eighty million dollars that they sought against us go just as you want to deal just strictly with the procedural issue of looking only at the face of the complaint the face of my complaint clearly gives rise to a million dollar claim not a ten thousand dollar client with respect to the cars in our case which is the d c circuit case  mr prize that case was a confirmation case that case began as a motion to confirm an arbitration award the award was less than seventy five thousand dollars and there was a motion to conform the court found that there was jurisdiction and that the amount of controversy was satisfied because the underlying arbitration claim to demand for more than seventy five thousand dollars euros in exactly the same context that this case arises majority approach and as the core pointed out in carson you're going the other way which is called the award approach raises exactly the problem that judge jones put her finger on which is jurisdiction over arbitration related issues should not turn on which point in the process the issue arises the economic reality here everybody realizes that this is a case of over eighty million dollars everybody also realizes that mr price would not be opposing confirmation and also moving to vacate in his separate proceeding unless he intended to go back and try to get a second bite at the eighty million dollars that's just not up to ten thousand dollars he's not prize now in fact the ten thousand was in his favor and we actually sent him a check for ten thousand many refused to cash it and so he got plenty of money and i believe that's probably true you're on now what's going on here in his motion to vacate papers he has very carefully avoided saying he wants to reopen the case because he obviously realizes that would create a problem for him but obviously everybody knows that's what's going on and that the fi jurisprudence allows you to look at that reality i would point to the the remaining cases and particularly the case where the plaintiffs in that case carefully in their state court petition said at first they said they didn't state in the mountain controversy they then later came back and said we have farmers really want less than fifty thousand dollars and that by itself was not enough to defeat remained and to justify their removal because the court said it was a wrongful death arising out of a plane crash the court said it's facially apparent here that what the plaintiffs are ultimately going to try to recover is more than fifty thousand dollars what the court said is if the plaintiffs want to avoid remaining keep the case in federal and then they need to enter into some kind of binding stipulation that says they'll never ask for more than fifty thousand mr price could do that here he could tell the court in some binding way that if we get this this is an award vacated we're not going to try and reopen the case and we're not going to try and seek eighty million dollars again but of course you're not going to i respectfully suggest you're not going to hear that now mr price his side of the ledger if we're counting circuits and trying to figure out you know what's was the defendant who wanted the zero instead of fifty thousand or sixty thousand whatever the number was in those cases in that context in those two cases that no matter how the motion to vacate of the motion to confirm came out the result was going to be something less than seventy five thousand dollars because it was the defendant who was arguing for sixty thousand to zero for example those cases are not this case where the party seeking avoiding confirmation and seeking award who is the one resisting confirmation and said in that context the amount in controversy is the amount in the underlying arbitration claim because that's obviously what the what the plaintiff is trying to accomplish is get the zero award wiped out so he can get back into arbitration or get back into court and get the original mount he claims and that approach is referred to in the cases as the remained approach and the six and eleven circuits which are the two circuits on which mr complaint to confirm the arbitration or what i was referring to was was our prayer and let me get the exact we don't paste amounting controversy on your premier which is i'm not quite sure how you would have done it but how do you have a separate complaint for how the supreme court would ultimately resolve this question and that's in the form of the horton versus liberty mutual case which which i think you cited and both both briefs it is three sixty seven us three forty eight that was admittedly not commissioner of the board and major claim and that this case arose back when the amount of controversy was ten thousand dollars and the amount that was before the worker's comp award was fourteen thousand that's what the injured worker sought the comp ward awarded one thousand dollars below the then ten thousand jurisdictional amount of controversy there was a subsequent suit by the insurer saying wait we should have to pay anything we should have to pay this one thousand dollar award that the comp board awarded the injured worker say wait a minute you can't file that case in federal court because there's only a thousand dollars in controversy the insurer said well no because the underlying comp claim that gave rise to this and in the in the first instance the proceeding before that for the before the board was for fourteen thousand dollars and the supreme court said that's right we look at the economic reality of the situation and the economic reality is that this was a fourteen thousand dollar claim an amount above the the amount  this is not an issue of me trying to avoid the general rule that diversity statues are strictly construed if i were arguing to the court that you should ignore the amount of controversy and then you would tell me no we strictly construe there is an amount of controversy the issue here is simply how do we determine what that amount in controversy is none of this court's precedent we determine that by looking at that quote the culinary consequence to those involved in the litigation the peculiarly consequence to the parties involved in this litigation is eighty million dollars in federal jurisdiction is gone we continue on under the f a a but i'm respectively submit that it's not a judicial decision it's a legislate decision and that it can be presented to congress for the changes to be made in the law garcia clearly indicates that the pleadings are controlling the second circuit which is where the arbitration agreement says the law is controlling  right what i would say to you in response is number one the district court ruled that the counterclaim shouldn't be considered for jurisdictional purposes issue one in the field and to this court and then the second issue  is that the bad case deals directly with that point that you don't look through to the counterclaim in terms of establishing  controlling the garcia case is clear in a small cases there is no case let me say that again there is no case in the united states that supports his position on the confirmation there are some on the motions to  but they're not on the the confirmation and up as the cult courts look at the ballot in case they went through in a very artful manner dealing with