good morning your honour's are made please the court i am attorney a disease i call representing the plaintiff below when the appellant here this case is back before this court following a reversal by this court and remand on the issue of subject matter jurisdiction i remained to district court held that there was a lack of personal jurisdiction and refused to transfer the case that a southern district of florida or personal jurisdiction would undoubtedly be proper i'd like to just emphasize a couple of areas which are laid out much more so in my in my briefs could you answer one question for me is is the question of transfer v dismissal of any meaningful significance in this case in other words for example would a suit newly brought in florida be barred by limitations is that the problem or is this just said that to me my question to you was whether this dispute about the transfer or no transfer is entirely academic or whether something really turns on  example would a new action if commenced in florida within the next six months be barred by the statute of limitations iran or respectfully i don't believe that it is academic because there is and they fought along for it long and hard for decision was rendered concerning subject matter jurisdiction understand all that but the fact that you've litigated here before is not really responsive i think to to my concern if we were to affirm your client's could start a new case in florida making the same claims to a false well that we would probably be using the same claims and is there any reason why such an action would be barred i am not aware of any way thank you in the case and that's already been litigated in our district court in connecticut as well as more importantly in this in this particular case in this particular court  and there should be no no no need or no basis for it to run run its itself all the way on up to atlanta with the eleventh circuit effort at that at issue has been put to bed matter jurisdiction can be raised at any time right if the case were transferred to florida instead of dismissed and reinstituted in florida your adversary could raise subject matter jurisdiction to the same extent that it could on a new litigation could well i understand that but not once the issue has been result and that and the issue has been resolved here unresolved just as much whether the case transferred or just as much or just as little when the case is transferred or reinstituted but unresolved in the dispute in this between these two litigants on these facts it's been rezai or has been or it hasn't been resolved  but that doesn't turn on whether the case is dismissed and reinstituted in florida or transferred but it hasn't been the issue of subject matter jurisdiction has been you know has been resolved and did the simplest most correct thing to do in the history of this case would be transferred to the southern district of florida where well if you institute the case in florida if you reinstitute the case in florida and your adversary says there's no subject matter jurisdiction what you say to the court that's been resolved in the second circuit yes  please the court your honors howard cameron from the grey robinson law firm in fort lauderdale first i want to thank the court for permitting me to appear from out of state here today as the court's aware this is this is a very narrow issue on appeal counsel has not contested the court's finding that personal jurisdiction is lacking he is only appealing that district court's decision to dismiss which the issue of personal jurisdiction first raised correct and they could do it now is that correct is counsel's understanding correct if the case stands dismissed he could dismiss the case he could refile the case yet another edition of florida other obstacle well i'm glad your honor asked because i did research that issue and i'm compelled first to say that the appellant in no manner or form has raised in his briefs time bar as a reason why it should be transferred as opposed to he said he thought not just right morning and i want to know whether you agree with him i do agree with him but i'm going to say for a different reason because it is my belief to the extent that i can divine the claims and all that the claims were time barred when they were first filed five years ago they're based upon the formation and funding of trusts in two thousand and three and two thousand and five that the latest date there is eight years before this case was filed so i don't think this dismissal creates a statute limitations problem that didn't already existing he would be no worse off or act in florida were he to file suit florida next week than he was when he filed the suit in the first place and that that's correct if we ever got to the merits of this case statue limitations would have been a significant issue even in the district of connecticut so there's a there are two general grounds to dismiss in favor of transferring and the district court sided both of them well within the court's discretion the first one is if the plaintiff fails to exercise diligence in choosing or knowingly chooses a form that isn't correct the rationale there being to not reward the the plaintiff for an improper form selection the court cited that these defendants have never had the slightest jurisdictional contact of the state of connecticut and i think it's very relevant that on the appeal counsel's not only conceded that now but he as affirmatively stated in his briefs that he agrees with it this is the third iteration of the complaint each time has been met with a personal jurisdictional defense the affidavits establishing that have been filed and refiled any time at in the last five years as counsel and we've been up and down in this court he could have recognize what he agrees now that this is that connecticut was the wrong form so i mean if that doesn't show a lack of diligence or the intentional choosing of a wrong perfect form it's genuinely hard to imagine what would the other reason which is also well within district courts discretion to dismiss rather than transfer was that the case as alleged clearly lacks merit on this point the district court's opinion focused on a specific issue the fact that the name plaintiffs which are in a state and two common law trust lack the capacity to sue in their own names under connecticut law as well as under florida law that is an accurate statement that's what the court focused  upon the court did described the claims as in the general sense as meritless so i don't think the district court ignored or rejected the other grounds that were asserted as to why the claims lack merit quickly one two and three the pleading continues in now its third iteration to be woefully deficient under the standards of ashcroft be it ball it has been a persistent problem that there's been no wrongdoing of any kind actually alleged in the complaints the appellant sued only for an accounting which under connecticut and florida law is merely i'm a remedy not a genuine cause of action as i said there's no underlying cause of action that's been asserted in any of the versions of the pleading and finally something that is new is that the trust documents on their face reveal that the claims lapsed when the original plaintiff his name is  died during the pendency of this case and i have a citation to the record of the trusts that show that in order to even have a continuing beneficial interest in the trust of which he had won he would have had to have survive my luby and he did not so there are a myriad of reasons why the claim lacks merit and the case law says that in this case the southern district of florida's time should not be wasted by a transfer in favor of e brother council is simply dead wrong on the law and in this circuit as far as considering the merits of their underlying case at this stage of the proceeding and i refer to page three of my brief the this court's and bike decision in aerosmith versus united press international we believe that there is merit but that but the arrowsmith case clearly indicates that the on issues of and personal jurisdiction that that is not that is not to be considered secondly the  or not to be considered on issues of venue or personal jurisdiction venue meaning the correctness of venue or or transfer of venue the correctness of venue that's not the issue that we're considering the issue of it's it whether whether to bother transfer his case to it the final accounting is it is required by the law and it is an a bailable of a remedy and something that can be sued on and and and so often with that with that i have nothing further unless you do thank you very much we'll reserve cision the final matter on today's calendar show j