in which you know it was i was very beneficial that we know in advance what you all are thinking the st question was whether you should hold this appeal it'll be it's because of the supreme court's baltimore climate change case which is getting argued on this court's decision in san mateo a search issue was granted i'm sorry service he was filed on the th of january and if if the supreme court reverses the th circuit and i  let me go into sort of the difference is it because i can't say for certain that they're going to answer the question here but i i think they likely will so the reason it really doesn't matter whether the district court talked about it is the case is probably going to get order d and the courts have split some say what we're going to order means everything in the order and some say no you parse out certain issues you know i think most most most predictors think the supreme court's going to say order his order and you get everything in there that is the position of the united states and this court itself you know speculated that may very well be what supreme court does instead of a tail and let me just say we follow a reply brief after san mateo  and i just i missed it came out in may and we missed it and obviously if we'd seen it we would have discussed it in the reply brief but i we were aware of the baltimore case and we we dropped a footnote about that  so so i don't think the ultimate reasoning that we're going to get from the supreme court which is going to focus on the meaning in order it is going to tie it into this question of whether the district court talked about it a lot the only  little tiny bit of de lay i can see is our question here is the procedural one about timeliness or is the question of the balls more case is when you have other grounds for google so there the oil companies have this federal common law theory of  that moving to the nd question that we had where is the state court case right now what's going on yeah so so here is my understanding and my friend can can fill it in so the no story was granted we asked for state no state was granted this case was remanded in october of two thousand and nineteen and then sort of a year passes and obviously a lot has happened in the last year and maybe it was coded related i just don't know but if year passes with but it you know it depends on sort of the like whatever kind of facts coming out about the condition of the plane if obviously there are still the children who have claims but they were sent through their prior motion for  preferential trial date was granted all right it was it was so my friend can speak to his own client's circumstances there i think if we're held in abeyance and  and in the meantime there's a trial in state court what happens if the state court trial reaches a judgment while this case is still fitting here i i truly don't know the answer of course here i think the legal answer has to be that it would be reasonable for the state court perhaps to you know pick a date that might allow for the supreme court to surrender its decision but i've never in that kind of game of chicken i've never i don't i don't actually know the answer but i think the answer has to no and i will note i mean this is really just kind of a footnote in the baltimore case there were motions for stay those were and are granted but obviously the supreme court didn't believe it was moving its own case by not creating a stay so i would expect could you know if they agree that it's reviewable or with over will and perhaps the supreme court believes it is reviewable but ultimately not removable which would be another reason not to i'd like you to address the question of whether the lockheed martin case the durham case where the issue was different the issue in the durham case was whether you ever rejected a clear and certain standard that i think the th since ten circuits have adopted i might have the circuit numbers wrong and whether on that issue the lockheed martin case is binding on us or whether we're writing on a clean was that there was no dispute that lockheed martin did in fact remove essentially immediately after seeing any basis under the federal officer statute and simply had not wanted to remove  that d sort of military products are involved well then they then they were moved and that's exactly what happened here well it's similar to your case if that's the standard yes correct now you know another reason why you might be a federal officer might be a little different is that officer is not subject to the well politically play rule so so if anything i think joakim kind of goes out of its way to say that these are liberalized for the party using federal office or removal to create a cottage industry was actually artful pleading and remove all that it should and let me be clear about what what happened here because you know it's our view that the district court did not appreciate just how much ambiguity there was and if i could do it all over you know i would boeing there is no listed product it just says premises and what's critical about that was it just report does not get it right here is that he worked at a commercial aviation facility which would make sense for a premises claim but you can't remove that because it's commercial so in order to remove it has to be a military cross or do we know about the military products well if its premises and its long beach that's the douglas corporate and if it's go military records about work on your predecessors aircraft i guess but i'm going to california once that exists why does it matter if it also happened in hawaii because we need to know they're making claim about that and that's the miss and let you know what the just me or the just based on the military aircraft in california i don't understand why no good you know if there's also hawaii oh no we don't need to know that there's also why what we need to know is that they are making a claim this because of my time is dwindling here maybe we could have removed this is why we cite the wroth case but there's a difference between you have enough to remove and you have so much clarity that the clock he worked at douglas aircraft a commercial facility so we need to know she's making that claim for the clock to start we didn't know that until april and this other stuff about you know maybe military maybe not i mean that goes to guess maybe you could go ahead  remake and sort of late summer she had been undergoing immunotherapy that had been fairly effective unfortunately that is no longer we're in for her at this point she is palliative care there she has been consistently headed downhill in discussing with the case manager in this case she believes that she's very very near the end of her days theory but i do think there is a nd issue that's equally important in this instance and i really don't think that the court needs to reach the jurisdiction issue in this case whether or resolving the who wins on the attorney's fees would resolve who's right on the merits even if i were to agree with you as a practical matter that  simply because as a practical matter if we agreed with you on a on attorneys fees we would be ruling as a practical matter in your favor on the remove ability issue i don't see how we can avoid the jurisdiction issue understood seems that's a fairly common practice in other areas maybe not with this court so i can understand the court's opinion and i'm well i would back away from that to him as to how to handle preference cases once they come back on remember some judges feel that you need to file essentially a brand new motion for preference  obviously disagree with that that's where we stand with this case now because of combet and all these things courts have been set in trial that it's the practical reality of this case is probably not going to trial for some quite some time so o the main issue the bone raises is what is the appropriate standard for when this nd thirty day clock should begin and implant this opinion that standard was established in  home and we believe that it's the very definition of a bright line standard not so much in the statement of sufficient evidence but in but as or in the court's reason had to provide lockheed with facts or each one of those elements a good counsel here agree that there are the issue the court was deciding was whether or not you restart the clock and that everybody conceded that if you do restart the clock whatever the test was it was there yes i do i do you can see that but i do also believe that the court was still looking to see  the clock starts and it gives them guidance beyond what i just noted and this is where it really gets into the bright line standard especially in the context that we're discussing today according noted that instilled or revealed the particular aircraft that was at issue here that he was claiming exposure to the removal clock would not have started because lockheed like other government contractors take some actions that are covered by the defense on behalf of the government and other actions where it exercises discretion while working for the government so in play if you know you have a highly specific stand to make it's called the fence we believe that that standard balances the competing policy interests between encouraging and requiring moveable as early as possible in order to avoid unfair advantage to lay a waste of resources also recognizing that a defendant shouldn't be required to go out on a fact finding mission is your is it your position that your view that you beat that test too absolutely absolutely but i also think the that standard if the reasoning behind it statins you far can become problematic in required to go out and search for mr dietrich's military records on its own at the commencement of the case to determine what point ins could be an issue or whether he was in the military at the time but once the once those facts have come out in discovery once planners to produce them they're charged with with understanding them in context of the complaint and the other has to have if i understand mr wells argument correctly he's saying that even though there three a copy of an amended pleading motion of work her other paper from which it may st be ascertained and i think the common meaning of ascertained is pretty pretty certain as opposed to having to go through lots of different paper and exercise some type of discretionary judgment how does your view of the evidence here  looking at the word ask search and does a pretty definitive kind of standard there q things i would say to that harris case counsel's against such a strict interpretation in harris the issue is whether or residence was which they hunt served than it was getting close to the trial so the defendant sent a letter saying hey we want to stay the plaintiffs in a letter back saying we don't we don't agree higher stand in this case and the harris case found the thirty day clock started upon receipt of that letter because it could essentially be inferred that they were abandoning their claims against  this rd defendant because of the timing is to there's nothing clear and unequivocal in that letter that would indicate they were abandoning their claims against that defendant and in fact they responded shortly after to say that they were they have no ambiguity to conclude that somebody was a citizen latina for purposes of diversity i mean that is significantly less ambiguity that occurs in this case as to whether they're making claims about military products until the  on and i don't mean to diminish that that there is of a real serious injury here in a serious disease but i kept mouse game goes on all the time and to some extent i stand here a little bit like brewer rabbit because