his reserve two minutes for your honor yes you may this appeal presents a case with diverse parties and a monetary disputed thirteen million dollars precisely the sort of dispute contemplated by the federal diversity statute yet industry of course counsel can we can we just stop that statement let me let you a couple of propositions or eat for us jurisdiction must appear from the face of the complaint i'd want that every piece of paper that you file the fourteen page document and there is no allegation  been saying to myself there are no facts played that illustrate jurisdiction there are none of the trappings of the usual civil action there your honor this case was initiated according to the district court's mechanism for the registration of state court judgements no that doesn't excuse me the district court doesn't have a mechanism for the record ation of state court judgement had according to which tenor applies only to federal court judgments now i understand you have an argument that it should be extended extended to state court judgements but we've got no express hold of aa quarter of the supreme court or indeed of the district most true since saying that it applies to state court judge your orders correct and there is no binding authority on this question but the district  seventy five thousand dollars now because those conditions are satisfied there are the circumstances here show something out of position wait a nd even if we could look at those documents you walters yes your honor but based on the record of we've submitted we believe that he is a citizen of massachusetts and on that basis the diversity statute has been satisfied district court the authority to accept the registration to begin with the only thing i can see you identify is diversity jurisdiction but to accept the judgment to register diversity you're thinking statute requires it to be a civil action i don't understand how the acceptance of registration itself is a civil action so i don't see how that the received your honor do what you want it to do your honor i think the term civil action is it's used in the diversity statute is it's not something that's been addressed in many cases but i think those that have addressed it was that it is in our briefing referred to in contradistinction to those actions that are criminal in nature this is a monetary dispute over the  your honor i think the source of authority is the massachusetts state law sitting in diversity that allows for the enforcement of foreign state judgments if it was no match state law allowing for the registration of the judgment you want to register a judgement that's what we have st need the district court to do what is its statutory authority to do that this is a story of already we think comes from the fact that there is diversity and the application of state law secondarily of the judgment at the time you tried to register district court there was a different stature to thirty five for a call for the execution of actions as i went with their state law or  gives the jurisdiction to do those things it has already to do so what is the source of authority to accept the registration of the i think that's an embed and that's a helpful distinction your honor because i think there the question is then a matter of procedure and whether we follow the proper procedure for enforcing the judgment but if the court has the jurisdiction between the parties based on the amount of controversy the citizenship and the fact that this is a simple who speak in the question i'm pretty sure is one that can be addressed separately but the court massachusetts state law with the and in addition i think that section one hundred and sixty three and this is the secondary argument that she has made can include can be read to include the statute can be read to include the state courts we don't think the court needs to and sixty three is the only mechanism that allows a party to register a judgment from another court in federal district court and by plain terms of the district court correctly held in section one thousand nine hundred and sixty three only permits a party to various circuits the nd six the th and the th in a number of district courts directly holding that one thousand nine hundred and sixty three does not allow for the registration of state court judgments in federal court the only court state court judgment federal court in one thousand nine hundred and sixty three but decided that because of what it perceived to be ambiguity in the statute nine hundred and sixty three did not necessarily prevent a registration action outside of that outside of the statute under very unique circumstances which are not present here specifically that that really wasn't just a registration action because there was a new party to that action and so really the issue in a motion for reconsideration is that irrespective of section one thousand nine hundred and sixty three he can register the judgment under the diversity of citizens to citizenship statute so as a threshold fundamental matter and we've your honour's raised this that's not what happened here mr wood did not invoke or plead the district court's diversity jurisdiction when you register he simply registered a state court judgment without any reference to the alleged diversity of the parties or otherwise state the basis for his subject matter jurisdiction this is not surprising because the procedure when one registers a judgment under one thousand nine hundred and sixty three is simply the ministerial act of filing a copy of the judgment with the clerk the judgment creditor doesn't make an allegation of jurisdiction because it's not relevant in a registration action and this is shown in the fidelity vs friedman decision that we cite twenty one thousand decision where it stated that the issue of jurisdiction and there was personal jurisdiction is irrelevant for nine hundred and sixty three purpose next argues that he can register the state court judgment under the versity statute because nine hundred and sixty three contains language of the registration procedure is in addition to other procedures provided for the abortion of judging the problem with that argument is that the diversity of citizen statute is not a procedure for importing judgments it's a jurisdictional statute and again outside of section one thousand nine hundred and sixty three mr who is on the able to point to any procedures that allow for the registration of state court if we do that that creates some tension potentially with the th circuit understanding of how to read the diversity statute the alternative argument that you're suggesting is that there is no source of authority even if there were diversity i clearly satisfy diversity jurisdiction but we sometimes dismiss because the cause of action you claim turned out to be wrong that didn't really exist the merits ruling out of diversity point that were at jurisdiction to entertain the question  just the merits i think i get i think that's right and you heard it you know as i see it there is there is no subject matter jurisdiction for all the reasons we laid out but even if you even if they want to remain even if the court found that there was  that there any other questions for mr brooks no thank you your honor is darryl stein on behalf of mr hu i'd like to begin briefly with g e bets because i think that case is an important one because it's the only case that is where really address the questions before the court here which is whether there is federal subject matter jurisdiction where action has been commenced by registration and there's diverse to the parties and that's precisely the situation we have here now the question we've been turning to his what is the source  which i think is both a question of a substantive right and a procedure and i think on both of those points i think the massachusetts statutes are essential there is one that provides for the execution of judgments that section fourteen which requires the filing of a transcript which is precisely what was done by the registration in the district court the other is m t l to eighteen section four a which is the massachusetts adoption of the second became a fact because your honor if this is a question about what procedure needs to be followed in order to in order to pursue this the the subject matter jurisdiction we believe is it be replete already filed then the then the court could apply the sar the district court could apply the statute that's in effect now it could require that it be commenced as an independent action but the fact would i can finish your honor your honor the the action was commenced in according to the procedure that's been followed for years in this room to massachusetts now understanding that the court might have some reservations about that procedure those reservations about procedure are different than the reservations that the district court base its judgment on which is the lack of subject matter jurisdiction and if there is subject matter jurisdiction now the case was before the court on a on  that concludes the arguments for today this session of the honorable united states court of appeals is now recess until the next session of the court god save the united states of america and this article or counsel you may disconnect from the meeting