the district court tried to distinguish it by saying it's limited to amount of controversy and we know that that's incorrect in fact discords back in september had a distinctly hammer that basically says sort of the analysis of dark cherokee in terms of we know from this court's decision and repel versus c d s military military contractor cases are different there's actually a now quite a few circuit cases involving especially to some military aircraft and ships so our point is our notice of remov short plain statement and went through all this the one and the one the military aircraft all relevant aspects of design of manufacture controlled by government oversight by the air force boeing will make the government contractor might list three companies and it's only after a deposition say that that a defendant like boeing hears ok when i was working for this subcontractor i worked on a military aircraft ok now there's a basis to remove that now you have a piece of paper that says you have a basis to remove so you wait for a motion to remain to see what plaintiffs are actually going to dispute and this appeal is actually kind of an interesting example of that because i don't hear the away and the district court in the district court has some reason to think that there's not complete diversity of citizenship so yes but i don't know when that's triggered so dart cherokee says at the very end of the substantive discussion of these issues that no facts  required no evidence is required and the plaintiff challenges for the district court and of course we know what a plaintiff's challenge looks like in the plaintiff could come forward and say that's not how much is at stake here's why or present some evidence or clear because if a plot we know the plausible allegations vice their possible allegations the case belongs in federal court that is a direct quotation from this court's precedent and spidey so does the district court get to go say but i think it's open to the district court to say i would i think i need some evidence about that before i believe it but this is what i'm having trouble with here i mean i agree that it only has to be plausible and i think that that requirement applies not just to not controversy but to the federal contract possibility requirement of the jurisdictional allegation but the other side the defendant could move under twelve being one to dismiss and say you know what you don't really satisfy the amount of controversy and then the plaintiff would have to pony up and maybe satisfy unless there was i think that's true look i think they need to come they need to actually attack the facts and say here's the fact that we challenge in some way the ninth circuit's is normally when you have a factual attack you put in some kind of other fact you put in own jurisdiction and if i think that maybe one of the parties is lying or that these things just don't add up you know i'm i have a question about this i think a district court probably has to have some kind of safety valve to say  something that proves that you know that you you know as you say that you actually can see a driver's license you know whatever it is just to prove you know to prevent a fraud on the court like whatever it is or if it's a low threshold that it's i think the proper properly in federal court and procedural issues can be waived so the district court should be waiting for a patient every one is not filed then the case is in federal court and there should be there's no motions practice it's over it's in federal court and that's what should have happened here i think district court question so whether or not the facts can be supported that why couldn't she issue a ruling shall cause requiring you to submit something additional or prioritiz on the question asking guarded why you are in federal court just to ensure jurisdiction if it is that i think the threshold there would have to be that the district court does not find the allegations plausible if the district  possibility of the allegations it was all about the evidence we attempt we attempted to put in evidence and then that was rejected and we said we would put in more specific evidence if given the opportunity  about what needs to be required but in order to assert a federal contractor defense it has to be colorful and we know from the q saw that the court is was that you have to submit evidence up front to be that as opposed to plausible allegations little would apply to an allegation of causation and connecting it to a maritime issue so it clearly isn't restricted in our circuit to the amount of controversy context specifically says it applies the pl poland products that were manufactured on behalf of the united states military only if you factor is a variety of products not all of them are covered by government contracts they're in a highly regulated industry where they require to keep and maintain contract