morning may it please the court this case is before the panel on to distinct issues the first issue is whether or not the district court relinquish jurisdiction prior to entering the judgment on for like twenty second with regard to the jurisdictional issue everything that flows from july twenty second two thousand and fifteen as unaltered in this case the court didn't have jurisdiction for multiple reasons one matter why does any of that matter that a motion to and force or vacate and arbitration where it stands on a different jurisdictional footing than a motion to compel arbitration that's correct it's a separate cause of from the standpoint of subject matter jurisdiction for the motion to enforce and have it and we've got a long line of cases that says that there needs to be an independent basis of federal subject matter jurisdiction that is correct and there was not right but that's not how the briefing has gone on the jurisdictional question here to the briefing has gone  jurisdictional related to subject matter but also that the arbitration that took place dismissed all the federal claims and so there's nothing to come back to federal court to enforce it in jurisdiction either by petition to con the award and that doesn't even matter under our cases well what's important is whether there's an independent basis for the motion to enforce or a motion to vacate if the shoe has been on the other foot  is i think it is it is part of the history of the case right and and what the plaintiff attempted to do here was creating a new claim to create subject matter jurisdiction by claiming there to use reinstating a is a state court filing on under the illinois uniform arbitration act and that mr fenton and his wife her mom were seeking a case that a war with regard to the thirty six seventeen claim on the issue in the cases that the plaintiff cites are six circuit cases trying to equate this case as a denial of access to attorneys by prisoners these cases now  are not similar at all in this case the plaintiff was able to get robson taishan immediately the plaintiff spends a lot of time on the discussion about the injunction entered in a separate state court action which is undisputed that the state court was advised that there was a notice to remove the case but the state court proceeded and entered the injunction it's in the order it was clearly there the and his law firm told the judge the state court judge sided approach the undergrowth of the feldman it's not the position of this court to take a second look at that order it's really a decision that there was an injunction entered nothing ever took place on injunction and the case moved forward for those reasons the judgment needs to be vacated because there was no jurisdiction at all create federal jurisdiction in that way well if where there isn't federal jurisdiction of the request to enforce on its face then there's no subject matter jurisdiction and motion needs to be dismissed  that it was clear from the administrative dismissal of the case which was without prejudice that the district court contemplated tightening up with whatever was left over after arbitration including the retaliation claimed for the the whole jurisdictional claims of the mr fenton or was conceded but by the district court when judge because c e o said that page twenty four of the appendix i think the only place to appeal the arbitration would have been in front of me so right off the bat i don't see why you're occupying yes i was wrong and the judge had not been alerted to the magruder and minor line of cases which hold that there must be an independent basis the federal jurisdiction either diversity you know a federal question in a motion to enforce and even if those cases hold that even if arbitration concerned a federal claim that does not create federal jurisdiction it's just a contract matter the parties bargain for arbitration they got arbitration and it's different from a motion to compel arbitration you know action four of the federal arbitration act contains different language than sections nine and ten just like so i respectfully disagree the case that independent basis is there any diversity here there is no diversity there is federal question jurisdiction because of the retaliation claim that isn't the case from the beginning and  disappeared it was always there even effect case was in from the beginning which i think is not true as a matter of descriptive fact it came later and it was submitted to the arbitrator and there's a question about whether the arbitrator did or didn't decide it but come back to federal court and get what i think you're assuming by going about whether to enforce or vacate i think you're assuming that there was a gap the jurisdiction of the court and at the administrative dismissal was in fact a break no i'm actually doing that there's a difference between just makes what do you agree with me that if he i'm asking the question so maybe you want to rephrase your statement i making a statement in the form of a question i'm not asking the question of course but i thought it seems to me that your position is based on the fact that you're assuming that the administrative dismissal was in fact a complete break in the jurisdiction i'm telling you it doesn't matter ok like i can't  done to deprive i think suggests purpose i think purpose and motive for basically indistinguishable i also think that if you look at the complaint as a whole and the fact that the tracks indicates purpose and motive to discriminate i'm from georgia and if for example a member of the k k k firebombed a school that was  desegregation order the court would not stand for the k k k persons and simply claim that he like to see fires as opposed to having a good racially discriminatory object to which was the fair housing act case from the retaliation that sought to stop the the federal fair housing case from proceeding that lose credibility when you make those kinds of arguments well for it forgive me i'm just trying to i'm not suggesting that mr fenton this is income or the k k k i am trying to create some kind of construct where handcuff all lawyers or parties representing their rights and the decayed so if you would accept plaintiff's position here is if an employer raises an affirmative defense to a claim of discrimination that's retaliation if someone raises a answer or perceives an outrageous settlement that would be retaliation well this is a little different there there was you know race to the state courthouse to utility of what we would prevent lawyers from adequately representing their clients zealously represent their clients if you're going to create a new range of cases against lawyers for retaliation for something they did in underlying case