the district court judge done that where would we be today well as you know the damages action is back in federal court he simply would have released the stay and everything would be fine and we wouldn't be before you it's very simple if the damages action remains in federal court as we believe in reality then this court this case should remain in federal court with that without the state kind of becomes purposeless at that point happened is that everything's got great twenty twenty hindsight but the question is at the time that the district court made its ruling why was it and it busuk discretion to dismiss  say there was the possibility of causing a problem like we have now and there was no good reason to dismiss there's always a possibility when you've got a diversity action that's par for it to go back and forth exact is always that possibility sorry for what you're arguing that every time the parallel action is a diverse if it were jurisdiction is founded in behalf of the cast and company the deck was torn relief act of his sort of a unique animal and it causes sort of strange results here where it is a sort of proactive district court decided to abstain from ruling on because it is a affirmative defense in the damages action and i was in it that both the state courts now and now the federal court in campanella have both ruled on the nine violates the constitution contracts clause that is the only issue in the prayer for relief in action and so the district court now sort of with hindsight i think and say constitutionality i mean these understand he's going to make an argument that they're part of their deal with that your highness different from the contract term that was in front of the california courts and and in front of the federal court i don't what it is or isn't that i mean that's going to be their argument and sort of they're entitled to have an adjudication of constitutionality on the facts as it pertains to your client certainly in the in the twentieth century versus your court the al either extension was right or whether it was right to dismiss robert instead i think we are getting maybe a little bit beyond the issue here although i think it does does the fact in some ways the reasona that that is an interesting question because it goes back to what you need to do to remove the case and and it's solely within the discretion of the parties seeking the removal in other words if there was a pending state action and there was a decorous or relief action in the district court all the party would have to do want to say hey both cases are and it's out of court they would just have to tell a movie whether it's well district court that the case we're making should remain in the district court the damages case and here we have challenged it again by sounding a motion to remain out of court on the first go round remand of the case based on the fact that the re ok thank you thank you your honors i have yet to hear any upside to dismissing this deck really faction there's only a downside if you don't follow what wilton talks about staying these kinds of actions you're going to get all sorts of factual situations in the future things that we can't even conjure up right now all they have to do in the district courts is stating the actions under the circumstances and there's nothing to lose and it doesn't clog up th stayed and it was an abuse of discretion not to stand because there's no good reason and i've yet to hear any good reason for dismissing case you just open yourself up to all the permutations of things that can go wrong and both court level