and section the employment four of the contract the function clocks states the parties mutually agreed that any litigation arising here under shall be brought and completed in polk county arkansas and other pertinent arkansas court it also adds that neither party just seek to remove such litigation from circuit courts or appellate courts of the state of arkansas focusing on the st part of the form so action clause again  provides that any litigation shall be both brought and completed in polk county arkansas and other pertinent arkansas courts so this lawsuit today could have been brought in polk county  and also another person in arkansas chords and it is required to be completed in polk county arkansas and another person of arkansas course at the use of the word in is you may have seen in the briefs use of the word in tells us these are geographic limitations and not jurisdictional limitations but the keys to this case your honour's are the words brought in completed and other parts of arkansas courts these words distinguish this for such a cause from the others the cases that are cited in the briefing and the one case that was cited in the district courts or all of those limit the form in this particular case is based on the word venue or jurisdiction not of those using in the interpretation of of this particular provision when the description is of a location in specific a specific county in arkansas as ignatius of arkansas court it doesn't say federal courts in arkansas it says arkansas court it is in some cases it doesn't say or in arkansas courts it simply paragraph it goes on to prohibit removal from arkansas courts to rd a real court in so it it seems that it's coming at this very clearly to say that litigation in this case is going to be in polk county arkansas it could be in a district court in post yeah to your circuit court and polk county and you can go through the appellate courts of arkansas but i see nothing in this provision that authorizes the litigation over this dispute in a federal court where your honor let me start there's quite a few issues that you put on the table and appreciate that let me start with your comment that you see it being required to be in polk county arkansas if the litigation is required to be in polk county arkansas and that would be either in the state district court court that completely writes out of this form selection cause the remaining option for where the court can be brought before the case can be brought and that is in the other part of arkansas courts now the person in arkansas be completed and it has to be completed in polk county arkansas and other part of arkansas courts however we define that a case filed in polk county arkansas possibly could be completed in the supreme court of the united states because of that other part of arkansas courts must have been intended to be brought up to include the supreme court of the united states i think this is a distinction between the cases that are cited only talk about been you know all the talk about jurisdiction they can look at those the only way that case we get to the supreme court of the united states would be to go through the appeals process in arkansas courts to the state squiers court and then appeal from the state's highest court to the u s supreme court but not through the federal trial courts and federal immune intermediate appellate court i agree with you but what i'm saying is the fact that the completed requirement in this form selection clause the fact that it requires the potential and the possibility that the supreme court of united states must be one of the courts in which the cases can be completed i believe that expands the definition of the phrase the other part of arkansas of course and if i could i can answer the hard time with that because i'm hearing you argue that  somehow they inclusion of that and the fact that a federal constitutional question could be appealed to the united states supreme court somehow renders the supreme court of the united states an arkansas court i mean i'm i'm i'm a hard time with that i mean it seems to me that the modifiers for plane we have the word court modified by the word arkansas and it just strikes me that arkansas courts got to be courts that are state courts or county courts in addition applying plain ordinary meaning to these clauses so we give all of the language where possible some meaning to give meaning to the completed in polk county arkansas and the other part of arkansas courts i believe in the context of the entire form selection because it requires the reading that the other part in arkansas courts can include the supreme court nine states it can include your court the th circuit court of appeals and it can include the eastern district of arkansas court and i go back to the definition of what the word permanent means i guess that's the key either you agree or you don't agree that they were part of modified as arkansas courts pertinence the definition of p relevant to a political tool or belonging to a particular matter and in this case i believe what it's referring to is courts that are pertinent to a political tour belonging to arkansas courts that are relevant to political to where you know it's purely restricted to geographical only in arkansas but i believe that the the fact that it has the completed language which is completely distinct from those  cases and the fact that it has the the prop language it just complete change is the entire context and it opens up the scope of the clause to include the supreme court of united states appeals and the eastern district arkansas and then when we get to the waiver removal provision again i disagree with the district court's conclusion and with counties conclusion of the fact that if the district court's conclusion is correct in that there was no option to bring litigation in federal court there would be no reason for there to be with this particular clause or be no reason for there to be paying waiver of removal because in state court was the only option it would be abolished in the form such a clause for the case to be removed because it could no longer be completed in state court so i believe the only way all of this works together and is coherence is where a pla has an option to bring litigation in state or federal court the waiver removal didn't eliminate the defendant's ability to frustrate that choice before about waiving the option of removal that makes sense  not titled as a choice of or over or anything less that is entirely governing law provision that non point for the agreement it contains two clauses that mutually reinforce the parties agree that any cases ar that the parties have waived any a right to petition the supreme court of the united states at the end of the line will of course the status of the supreme court is an interesting question here because the supreme court serves as both the chief court of the federal and state systems i don't i don't think it does because i think that would be a part in organs or in this  case i don't understand that i thought your whole point was that modifier arkansas means it must be a court of the state of arkansas on the supreme court of the united states is not such a court so say that arkansas  then why doesn't that mean that then it could mean the u s district court certainly that's not the issue before the court this point whether i know that mr don't says we've got to deal with the implications of your position which apparently would be that the parties and waive their right to go and supreme court united states and he says that can't be right so we've got to read it to mean something else well it can be in arkansas court and therefore a federal court can be an arkansas corner or st of all why can't it parties agree to arbitration instance it would be waiving something that is not likely to occur anyway and so i think i think this language means what it sets other partners and so of course  everything numerous cases say that where language is used in a particular county where there's not a federal courthouse it must be read to mean only state courts the nd cause reinforces that language because and i'll read the whole thing here is i think the whole post important further neither party shall seek to remove such litigation  on to say the near forty will seek to remove by application of conflict of laws that phrasing wasn't discussed at all and smart briefings but i think it's important arkansas to any federal court or court not in arkansas and what litigation are we talking about the beginning of that clause phrase it as such litigation well such litigation obviously references a definition earlier in the provision which is any litigation arising here under and so it presupposes that any litigation arising here under will be situated in the of the state of arkansas and not be removed by any process including but not limited to statutory removal that's all that was discussed last of our communication but it also includes application conflicts of certainly the county's position that by using the word shall the phrase in polk county and not using the word order in the st clause but using the word and and then in the nd clause reinforcing that by the phrase such litigation which means any litigation arising here under may not be removed again in the colloquial or common sense understanding of that term because it includes not only stands to or will but application conflict of address the discussion that mr owens had regarding the word and and his comment about it not including or being replaced by the word or in that somehow deconstructing our argument and the conjunctive and it my understanding brought up as well as completed in polk county arkansas as well as other part of arkansas courts in other words i think the cause would completely collapse if it if it was construed were both of those requirements had to be completed in and  t at the same time but i will go back to the this question that were having before and that is the completed requirement in the form selection cause must include the supr united states as an option for completing litigation i'm not if not because if not the form selection causes violated it would be violated it would be violated any time a case was carried on appeal up to the united states supreme court  i couldn't the clause be a waiver of any access to the federal forum and just an agreement that the parties will settle for whatever the supreme court of arkansas decides because i don't believe that any any part of this this clause would be construed as a clear and unequivocal waiver of an appeal to the united states supreme court i believe that i believe that would have to be something that was clear and unequivocal and i don't believe that that's here and really because i think the better argument in the in the clearer argument is that this evidences and gives effect to exactly what the parties intended this cause provides again that  those courts would be perfect they would relate to they would get political too they would have jurisdiction over in every way arkansas courts what would not maybe another well look at it as well as the limitation of the western district arkansas would not be a pertinent arkansas court to dispute or to these parties contract florida my client's residence would not be a pertinent federal court i think the key is the word heard what would make the core pertin to this dispute and to arkansas courts and i think that also again fits exactly with the nd part of the form selection cause and the removal waiver does that removal a waiver language is it right enough to to be a waiver of the many appeal to the supreme court of the united states made just or any other removal process to any federal court it seems like you know the supreme court of united states is a federal court but i don't believe that can be construed as removal in any form or fashion i don't believe an appeal can be considered to be the equivalent of a  right it's a petition for search for it and i do not believe that it would be i do not believe it can be construed to give to use plain ordinary meaning and looking at the canons of contract construction i don't believe if we apply those that we could ever come up with that as the meaning of the removal process being that the right to believe dives it's prank or would be waived but just one last thing you get when i read the complaint and i thought it was a pure diversity based complaint but somehow mr on suggested there may be a federal question here and i didn't see that the jurisdiction completed provision and the waiver removal would be superfluous for these reasons the for such a clause provides that the eastern district of arkansas is a proper form and the district court's order and judgment we request