corresponding implementing legislation twenty two u s c sixteen fifty eight at issue is whether or not the district court erred in denying romania's motion an amended motion to vacate and the motion to reconsider when it ruled that it could utilize the summary procedures of new york c p l r fifty four and entering an ex party judgment on an ex of the board and when it dismissed without discussion for a foreign state in the courts of this country the only way a federal court can establish something a matter of jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction over a foreign state is to complain is to comply with the  act actions and proceedings that is granted in article fifty four does not apply to actions against foreign sovereigns after the patent passage of the  conflict and in fact the exit convention article fifty five references article fifty four in the states nothing to article fifty four governing recognition or foresman of an award because story construed as derogating from law in force and any contracting state relating to immunity of the state or and any foreign state from execution or foreign state shall not be immune from jurisdiction in which the action is brought to confirm an award correct but we're not asking the exception applies only if they're in turn national agreements conflict with the immunity provisions of the f s i and our position is that there's no conflict your honor given the fact that sixteen fifty eight and scanlan and house specifically require and state that the f s a trumps any provisions that are not clear in the yes your honor the reason is number one because the law requires a number two in in our specific instance our facts are very pick your yes we have a judgment that our remain as position is that it has been paid on top of that we judge didn't consider those arguments claiming that it was premature and this should they should be raised at the enforcement level but that would be the case even if you also said that wouldn't be the case your honor because at that juncture  the the the purpose of recognizing a judgment is to reach an unforced of a level and an execution level if these arguments were permitted to be raised and remain a isn't attacking the underlying validity of the judgment saying that the judgment exists but the judgment has been paid and moreover because it's been paid i have an injunction from the european commission asking me to take back the money that i have been paid then the recognition should have taken place and had i been given the opportunity to case your honor i had i didn't have the opportunity to be heard i had the opportunity for the judgment entered to be reviewed and at that juncture that district court relied on the very case thought that is before this court at this time and it didn't preclude the allies from ship proceeding with seeking discovery that could create a prejudice before different you know you know it's the the facts are very similar and the issues are the same they have an accommodation i believe that they do and i believe that the united states government  department of justice was asked to intervene but then i'm expert on the issue may please the court my name is francis fast because i'm here with my colleague jacqueline chung in law from a white and case we represent four of the apple lees also sitting with us is danforth newcomb and joshua ebersol from the thank so this arbitration that's at issue here that was confirmed by the court was originally filed in two thousand and five and resulted in an award in december of two thousand and thirteen  just by way of background remain a petition exit under that procedure which allows a kind of appeal called and moment in two thousand and fourteen that petition has been subsequently rejected i think and i  picked up from the panel and there is a way to harmonize the exit convention with the f s a and the enabling statute while giving meaning to all of them without looking for unnecessary conflict i believe are as you pointed out written into sixteen fifty a itself because it allows for the the bringing of this lawsuit in any of the district courts all across united applies to all other cases and x it does apply but it says you can file it anywhere you can file it in nevada even though there's no connection with the nevada district court that's your view right yes it is your honor because if there were assets in nevada are right yes it could be filed and that that was the the the way the statute was constructed if you look at the legislative history it says specifically that this is designed so that not only these awards can no but the statute was intentionally written that way that could be because the idea was behind the it's a convention itself is that the award would be good all over the country that it is ceded to exceed convention like the united states did and the united states designated its federal courts as the place to do that so if if the united states had wanted it only to be in a particular court it would have said that in the statute but instead it said all of the district courts and that was very explicit in the legislative history that it was intended to be allowed to register this as a judgment in any of those courts and apply the state law those courts it would apply the procedures that went on and i think there's we're back in one thousand nine hundred sixty six at the time and in that year you're still just getting the federal rules of civil procedure you don't have a foreign there are many very procedures all over the country for these kinds of actions this is traditionally an area that state courts and state law deals with and so i gather he would file in districts where there are assets right you wouldn't file in montana if there were no assets or is would there be reason to file in montana i can't think of any reason to file in montana of the my family lives there but that's not irrelevant and it's relevant to this  be a summary process that's the purpose of the convention the purpose of sixteen fifteen a that this treaty wanted to give these kinds of awards special status not not just as a regular  be taken care of under the federal arbitration act and it specifically said no no no we're going to treat these as if there are judgments entitled the full faith and credit as a substantive matter and so we are going to let claimants with rewards come in and force these wherever they feel they need to in the district courts united states of america on on the second issue you know com as it is a little troubling that we're being asked to recognize a judgment that the european commission has said cannot romania cannot pay how do we deal with that i think you deal with it by looking at what the united states agreed to and what it didn't agree to the united states signed up for the ex convention the united states is not a member of the european union and so whether european union law has some problem with this award really is not something that  ignore someone earlier and one of the other cases referred to a rock and a hard place and that's certainly where remaining his at the moment sure i would disagree because i i think this is helpful  believe so after after that i would have any idea when we might expect it probably not until sometime next year  just in closing i wanted to give the court a citation that is not in our brief because it goes to the the sixteen zero for the carve out issue in the case of the second circuit case proper venue is that you see this strike as a substantial part of the events for missions giving rise to a claim occurred and another district and it's important to know that this case was started in d light of the fact that the award is collective the low produced without prejudice your honor and despite that two or three days later they came into the district court where it was a final favorable decision that was rendered the same day that government doesn't care how these proceedings how it's party proceedings are affecting the u s government which is a party to the exit it's hard to believe that congress intended that x party proceedings are permissive all instances where the united states government would be a defendant in a case it's hard to imagine that congress would have intended to do united states government be subjected to an x party proceeding in an instance such as this where there is of a payment that's allowed to be made in full and a claw back provision from another governing body entity country it's hard to believe