after the death of their father the defendants have yet to file an inheritance proceeding in the local state courts and continue to leave their older half brother without any benefit or resources from his father's fortune which he i guess i guess we could file something in state court but in this case federal jurisdiction is appropriate our client lives stateside so we had diversity jurisdiction and if what you mean is the same action we could have filed it in state court if what you mean is a probate proceeding it's really we have no information as the as the other half siblings do to be able to file that and file the the that that's returns that have to be filed at the father's estate that kind of thing we are not able to do we are able to do only what we are doing and in the federal court we could we have filed this in state court yes but we have little jurisdiction because of i guess i'm trying to get that mean so there's no proceeding in puerto rico probate court where you can bring a challenge that the assets of the estate are being dissipated demanding an accounting since he wasn't a are under the will i'm not certain i'm not certain i don't think we have the information from the estate to do that which is what we file this action in federal court against the question is what ever information you have now is enough for you to try and seek the accounting through this this action right now to try to seek an accounting or and then the way i see the accounting and the way i would see the accounting would be somewhat different and accounting would or would be more of a more of a different thing if the we have to get the request exactly what we're requesting in front of the u s district court or would it would we call it a a probate proceeding it would still fall before him part of the same civil court in the state system that's what i guess the question is if that's jurisdiction away from any probate court there is nothing we have and we are not asking that the court do so but it takes because because you you you are an essence indirectly contesting the provisions of the will i know where you read that that is indeed indeed fifty nine million dollars transaction that we make reference to in the complaint that's where it just language that the belongs it would be forgiven if the father read the ceas they they under they understand that it would be forgiven that would be another situation that's that's that's something else that would have to be examined but again we go back to this is about restitute ing to the father's estate beneficiary at almost the same proportionate distribution as younger siblings that i think that by making the court believe that there is order should be a pending you you're unhappy with the amount that is purportedly in the state and the estate your honor the thing is if they don't move forward with the probate the estate will never be distributed and bothering me the way you framed the action to us we'd have to make a judgement about what's in this state  not in a not in a probate estate but rather in the father's continuing on probate of the state only as to the assets that were troubling the taken out of the of the others none probate of the state nothing to the with probate at this point well  maybe i'm misunderstanding something i thought the reason you're seeking the accounting is to st get straight what's in want that wrong the reason for the accounting is when there's a worker's when there is a probate action filed or when or in other in other in other in other situations when the when what we're asking from the court is that the make a determination as to probate distribution we're not doing that over asking to do is to bring back the assets that were taken into the estate into the  therefore mr liberal in europe cannot prevail in any of these three causes of action without st abrogating one or several provisions of his father's will or asking the federal court to administer the estate to address her competency are or lack there off on now counsel can it can i just ask you a question about puerto rico procedure is there anything that that prevents someone who might be disputing a will to force the opening of of an a state in state court no your honor and that that in either commonwealth law or procedure for the plaintiff to file these claims challenging and that wasn't that wasn't exactly my question my question was whether whether it is appropriate whether there's a process in puerto rico by which someone who might be claiming under a will can force the opening of the new state in state court and and and he would need to invalidate this will in state court by doing them seeking an accounting which he cannot do by seeking to transfer or request  at the estate to the activities such transfers would be considered as an improvement in the position of the heirs in this estate and i guess it goes to the ultimate question here and that is  i'm not i guess i'm just missing something fundamental about what this dispute is the way your opponent is characterizing it it is they don't want to touch anything other than the things that are outside the state is that right leave your honor because what he's seeking is whatever is allegedly in the pockets of the other core heirs he wants to you know bring to the is technically bring to the estate and then readers tribute but the point here is that the will addresses that and right i'll just try to relate this to the accounting the seeking of the accounting point in other words if if you were both in agreement that what he seeking would not require in validation of the will then i take it you're saying that probate exception would not be a part of his plane correct if what if he weren't seeking to know because the administration of the will itself it is within the purview of the of the state  inheritance but those are buzzwords for marshall that would help his case stay in federal court perhaps but that's not the case either because again all the three and that this record was you know you've researched four minutes to thank your honor three quick points number one everyone seems to be sort of ignoring our cause of action number four which in marshall it specifically states that plaintiff's request for emotional or make anomic damages arising out of the fandom's alleged negligent handling of the estate is not necessarily prohibited by the probate exception in marshall at that p in our complaint in our complaint are our or plain specifically talks about non probate a not a non probate claim which the court denied is not not being not being sufficient the i'm trying to find in any event even if even if the if the probate exception w although we thought we had all the we understood we had a viable claim the court dismissed the court dismissed that one as well in order to get rid of the of which is supreme court case law it tells us that the the appropriateness of appointing the receiver include and each one of these areas have a specific us supreme court cases fraudulent conduct on the part of the defense then because when you ask for a receiver to administer and take possession of the deceased's assets in the state yes or on and because there was also as the supreme court said there was imminent danger the property would be lost or squandered which is what was happening here the inadequacies of other available that legal remedies and the probability that the harm to the plane the by then i think that would apply what does that mean it means that it just because in the that contract it gave the other errors certain benefits that does not to look at it is less it's less than the fifty nine million dollars that were squandered and assuming there are not any other indications that because we were not allowed discovery in this case but assuming that that's the situation th the amounts that were taken assuming the estate as large and of those numbers would go back and would be coldly did and then distributed to the other half siblings that were that were to benefit from that