i'm here on behalf of the enable parties the appellant's the defendants below i'm accompanied by mike mcclintock who is has not actually entered an appearance on this part of the case but is involved in the case mr mcclintock is a member of the  the plane to swallow the movements below have the burden to establish the elements of their claim they didn't do so one of the elements of their claim is a demand for removal of the  is close to original condition it's possible there's nothing and i don't have the i don't have the easement in front of me there's nothing that says that they must remove and in fact if you look at the course of conduct in this case if you the cats and anybody but in a common generally when it relates to property rights incorporate state law unless there's a good reason not to is that correct it certainly does that which there's a good reason not to am i wrong about that state no you are then then what's the good reason not to just apply oklahoma law in determining the substance rights here unless there's lawsuit you know i do not believe that oh you mean they actually had to formally file a lawsuit and also add attach a piece of paper that says this is your notice to get out and yes your honor i think they do whatever they said to get out i think there's some good that is lost i think there are some good reasons for all i think they have to communicated in in a in the proper way it doesn't take a whole lot to communicate or but i don't think the filing of the lawsuit itself does i mean that this what about the court or decision tell them i'm sorry was that litigated before the court that issue no it was obligated it was not it will then why are you going to the why isn't it a defense you may have on that point wait because they have an obligation the other side's moving party they have an obligation to prove each element of their claim they did not prove this element of the claim and there are several errors in what the trial court did and that's kind of the problem that we have here the trial court candidly didn't apply the proper summary judgment stander the at these case the supreme court case of i think we all know is very clear the burden is on the moving party to prove each element of the claim that didn't happen here well now i return to where you started out yes where what oklahoma law and rather exploration of a lease makes you a or a holdover tenet is there low on that subject there isn't the landlord tenant situation but that's not what we have here there isn't what ok that i'm aware of in this type of the situation but we do have for in making the determination whether to do so partially quoting partially not we may take action to recover possession of the whole overtime if that's the case will be charged against the new term secondly at that's a codification of the practice of the b i a has hat secondly in this case we have a letter a fellow whose last name is deer and water you can find it in the appendix pages one thirty six through one cory and this is the letter that mentioned in the briefs that says that rejects the original finding by the b i a the cruet the extension of  and that is the crux of our of our argument i could go into other details as well but i mean that's when you get right down to it that is the essence of of the argument we've we've now it seems to me that that would be something where the substance law that would govern would be oklahoma law whether you have to have all four elements or a permanent injunction that seems to me to be a matter of substance these things need to be established before an injunction can be entered so why wouldn't federal common law incorporate oklahoma well on that point an interesting thought i  further interesting thought injunctions arise in equity right yes and those are balancing fact or it's right and you don't have to have all four factors under the law any law that i know  require you to have all four and this is that you shall balance those equitable factors and make a determination as to whether the court did that right the prop yes your problem stu unfortunately but it did the problem here is the court didn't balance anything the court simply said i'm finding in your favor on the substantive claim therefore injunction i don't have to i mean she was very particular i don't have to consider the and that's why i court has to find is that your chest answer an injunction will issue to vacate the premises and take away the pile of rocks or whatever it was on the church premises so that's why i'm asking  federal common law claim and i understand little common law sometimes adopts state law that almost always doing property rights i think this is what we're talking about here is getting an injunction what you need to do and what the court needs consider that strikes me as much more procedural than substantive you know gee there's a way well there's the standards it's the standard you apply it's not saying how you're going to put on evidence what rules of evidence one for permanent injunctions which is kind of interesting and and i think that the fact that there is one for temporary injunctions kind of instructs the point that this is what we're talking about here are under the statute to grant an easement you need more than what what exist what existed here that that's clear i don't think that is true for the situation of being on the land itself that it's not you know we don't have a right way at this point and so i think that's where the differences and that's why the national lopez case you still need for a different role as a holdover yet using your left yes that for what the rule is if you're a if if you're you describe yourself as a holdover if the parties have told you to get out and sued you get out in the court is the group of them don't you good public policy reasons not to so that a party such as of my clients can exercises its obligation to get off in an orderly way the filing of the lawsuit shouldn't be that and i don't have much time exactly what happens we argue both the vast body of case law that says you have a right to an injunction of a specially trained a continuing trespass both on your oklahoma state law which is well established but also lots of federal decisions on that point we also argue before factor to us they responded on the four factor test and really respond on the other issues so just the grange acknowledged that she had knowledge of the case law is very clear and history that we here is going to issue restrain continuing trespass but that's all she did she then went through and said here's the situation where you could maybe not have an injunction such as where the owner stood by and let them build on the property and put them on notice but then she went through the rest of page nine of her order and on page eight she addressed the fact they have an inadequate remedy a law which is one of the factors on page nine she went through and discussed the fact about irreparable injury and that it was years at that point they consistently objected to the renewal and the defense has done nothing to even attempt to remove this pipeline from the problem so i think she went through the injunction factors also want to know your honor on the matter that context of o bjecting to the renewal was there ever ever ever any paper that went back and forth that indicated that that could be construed as notice debate well i think when they express incorporates the reg in the reg says the eleven has some discretion whether that treat them as holdovers or trespassers and if that's the case they ought to give you notice i'm going to absolutely because the regulation does not give the actual civil authority over that i think if my clients want to bring an action or inquire removal that i climb they have to have the right to do that regardless of whether be i want to say we would you know in our in our discretion we would assess is not a part of this case in fact they argued in the truck or that united states was a necessary part of this action and that affirmative defense was stricken and that's not a force that they well if they actually did not then argue it ad they don't bring it back up in whether they don't have a position in this case they took a position in the condemnation actions ever condemnation action they had filed that they did not have the authority to condemn them but that they have no no no the federal common law if it is federal common law that's for the common law incorporates state law to some extent maybe not the others what your position it's not really grief but it's essential to our resolution california state lands commission case in this case on the issue of demand or consent they cannot get around the requirements of twenty five u s c three twenty four the majority consent requirement which they acknowledged and stipulated below repeatedly they did not have and i want to point out that their demand argument really schiff's really flips the burden on getting that consume because the statute says the burden is on them to get the whole case is kind of peculiar because you wonder how much injury there really is to having a pipeline and you're on your property so i can see why you might not as the pipeline company you might think that they're really not asking us to remove it they're driving a hard bargain on what the prices are going to be and for that reason in that context it just strikes me as a different situation from from when you first want to put the pipeline in well it is i but i think the regulations require them to remove that is intended to sort of make them do all this before they apply for the renewal the regulations also say they're supposed of a different situation than normal just somebody coming out without any permission and those would have been a good arguments for us to flesh out in the district court they never made this argument they they argue consent and they pointed to these i can sense from a north minority interest on appeal you'll the summary judgments will be said so it doesn't make a difference whether demand is required and it makes a difference whether the the presence of the band it's known that your cat playing or demand is actually he got three days a man he said i should be entitled thirty days in the end and this court said that's not required because this case is going to federal common law but then went on to analyze the oklahoma statute and said because you have a lease with an express like we're not automatically treating you as a trespasser and if that's the case then should new get notice that you're being treated as a trespass you're not i would just respectfully disagree with that reading of the regulation again i think that regulation only gives the i just rushing area thore to do certain things doesn't presents my clients but even if it did thereafter and they repeatedly stipulated in these facts and the district court they the majority objected they appealed that she thousand eight decision approving that right away clearly they were not consenting to the right away at that point there after they and they know in their brief the defendants refused or the landowners refused to negotiate with and they did not want them on their property and then they filed the condemnation action and then we filed but now actually remove them from the property and their actions could be construed as we want a lot more money for the lease as opposed to we actually want this pipeline off i would i would think that that makes more sense that they want more money than pipeline that's i would say none of that was developed in the district what i think it's some point your fine my clients want them off their property there they're tired of dealing with them they don't want them there anymore but again that was again this argument about demanding or negotiations this was never raised in the district work and now they're trying to inject this for the first time in the case on  a nano we seem to hold the secretary's consent the ice consent was not required in that case it's just that the land owners consent was required you what's your injecting this co tenants you get consent from some people maybe you don't have it from others of all plaintiffs did not address the majority concern requirement that is statutory from congress and section three twenty four and then address the situation of yours i think it was easily thirty minutes ye disagree with plenty of why well so for example if you go again to appendix page one thirty nine and you look at the deer and water letter right in the middle of that page what he says is that he has remanding when he rejects the the deal that was