underlying claims upon which the motion to vacate were based and unlike all the cases that there was a question as to whether subject matter if your stiction existed in this case there was never anything but federal investor challenging financial markets and frankly i have a very large problem with the judas kenneth goldman not serving their day in the court when it comes to violations of the securit here's why what the saying was counsel and i have made a large argument of is was there jurisdiction of the federal court in a motion to vacate opposing counsel says we sections for three four and possibly five and show you george stiction i am arguing on behalf of goldman's and as this court readily recognized of course a federal court has jurisdiction under the securities acts and the federal arbitration act and the federal not exclusively when you say of course you say disk or recognize or you or are you talking about that the recognize that section thirteen thirty one and and fifteen u s c seventy eight are subject is subject matter jurisdiction is in for district court so you take the but it's in a footnote because there's decades of this court recognizing that it's a federal subject matter jurisdiction exist under thirteen thirty one and seventy eight especially when the underlying issue whe there's decades one should give us a single case other than if he ventures where we said you can look through to the underlying is you and rely on that as the hook for of in the united states supreme court then cortez byrd chips versus harvard and that is found it wasn't briefed by either of us at five to nine u thousand one one three five two nine u s one three in the year two thousand that case addressed the venue it was a unanimous decision it discusses the logic and the law behind  a motion to vacate on the section nine and actually ten and eleven of the federal arbitration act allows a court where the award was made jurisdiction to decide the should try to meet that are because when you say over the logic of it is very clear in fact that the logic the seventh circuit relies on even as recently as with that just i think in the last week or  if you settle that up that would be and then you wanted to vacate the settlement it'd be in essence just a contract dispute there'd be no federal jurisdiction there what's what's wrong with the reasoning judge easterbrook that well what's wrong with that your honor is it doesn't co exist with opinions in this court or the second circuit now in the second circuit even though it's an unpublished opinion it gets right to the point the statue to me the supreme court itself said why it's important i mean the actual argument for why you do look through in section ten section nine excuse me in such  four it's just it's different it's not there when you come to asking for take it or well here's why your honor first of all it's you can't look at it i respectfully ask that the third circuit doesn't look at the  in one and not in the other right yes just language in section four that says the united states district court may actually impose jurisdiction if save for the  have your section anyway yeah now that language is missing in ninth and eleventh that's the point but that's thank you so that's what i'm trying to come to grips with it's in for it's not in one thousand and eleven so you're briefing you seem to say hey while you're on i can't say any better than the us supreme court said itself it says congress does not in that same case in this case is the grocery business that says congress does not and in general intend to create venue gaps which take away with treated as having that language because here's the result in this particular case this particular case is about a margin call federal margin calls are reserved the federal courts you don't want the state court in idaho decide in that section a contract that they will have here this you settle this matter and if the settle if the decision is contrary to federal law it doesn't make any difference because it's not presidential why would the third circuit in for even make a decision on arbitration if that was the case because in freeman versus pittsburgh last there were issues where the district court reviewed vacated i think the third circuit reversed so for the same circuit holds that if the underlying arbitration that was federal law what the federal communications act then the federal district courts have the right to review those motions  arguing about a lot all here really there's a dispute of fact you've taken the position that there was a margin call the arbitrator said there's not a margin there was a margin call there was no evidence of a margin call we're not really dealing with a legal dispute of any sort we're dealing with what is fundamentally a question of historical fact which you lost in front of the arbitrator if that's true but this is a question federal law and exclusively federal law well no no it's a question of historical fact whether something should be considered a margin call or shouldn't be considered a margin call that's a question of want whether somebody actually came and took money out of your client's account and and said this is a margin call that's not a question of law that either happened or it didn't happen right true ok well but that's a question of fact and ju arbitrator looked at that said you didn't prove it so you lost that's a question of fact how is that even if we were to accept your view of the world that this is you could look through under section and when there is a question of security  issue she said you know you have a question of why you got a question back why should wrong i have to answer that first of all judge brody did not look at the merits of the case she could not look at the merits of the case she merely looked at whether there was jurisdiction and once and maybe that's the drive by essence of the decision on what she perceived to be younger the in the motion to vacate could frankly there was never a hearing on it there was briefs on it and then it was stopped because of a motion upheld the miter case out of the seventh circuit the greenberg case and the second circuit of squarely held that no federal issue arises from a you know a violation or a breach of your arbitration process and some problem with we've handled in our submission that we made to the court there's a supreme court authority there's third circuit authority to effect the drive by jurisdictional statements are not binding cannot create binding precedent  and you know the statement that was in the case is contrary to the coastal coastal general case it is contrary to the supreme court cases that require application of the well plea complaint presidential value in a drive by jurisdictional so i'm just i'm saying that you know the court is on on from ground here to say you know it need not give credit to that statement especially since contrary to  all the law that we cited in our papers in addition to coastal general there are of there are multiple other circuits sort of held that you can't look through these cases come both before and after  preventing those as a circuit split as to whether you could even look through in the section for context and in fact the majority view was that you could not look through your despite the language that was cited earlier slight language in section four majority opinion was you could not or majority view it was you could not look through the section four section ten thousand tax writing came along and said you know that the specific language of section fo call was made in their circumstances and that the arbitration panel ignored that and fused to acknowledge that that that that by the regulatory regime that's i understand the pitch that's being made right i don't think there's anything in the record that that shows that they went to the arbitrators and said here are the federal margin laws and regulations  gets anywhere in the record second point is the point you're on a meter earlier was they did not allege manifest error of law and they said those words but what they allege was that no margin call a margin call was made you know the record is clear that what they're saying is as a factual matter no margin call or a margin call occurred which is not manifest error of law and i'll also add that you know section ten does not even make it appropriate for a court to review a factual matter and there's no there's no merits review of the facts that is supposed to happen at the district court level when it's when it's deciding whether vacating arbitration award so would be it would be you know really off the reservation say that that factual issue gives rise to federal jurisdiction when it's not even something the court can review under athena ventures and secondly you would have to find that your what they call drive by jurisdiction in that footnote is so horribly wrong and prohibited by a higher aut now it's contradictory to close general but the earlier decision is the one that is whining on well your honor then i think it might be time for the court to consider whether in fact the law has changed so that the eleventh circuit as well that you should look through  a petition to vacate to see if the fed if there is federal law underlying in order to allow a motion to vacate then you have the seventh circuit saying obviously one thing you have the eleventh circuit saying something else know when you say we surely would have because of exclusive jurisdiction you know that doesn't wrestle with the central point here you again you're assuming your conclusion which is that we would look through and see the securities and that's the whole question  right there you go that is the that is the point do you simply just look at a petition to vacate and say oh the petition to vacate doesn't address and i don't know what any petition opposing counsel said i don't recall anything about manifest disregard or if those issues were raised as to marching holes in the arbitration well yes they were and they were preserved because i literally had a court refer record the entire arbitration proceedings those arbitrators were made aware it's impossible for you to disregard the existence of a margin call it had to arise automatically by computer