from montana that point is that correct well certainly nobody alleged that nobody knew that one way or and that's so not so the joinder was not an effort to defeat diversity absolutely not  pay premiums for thirty years was totally disabled he's an ironworker on off switch he's totally disabled due to a massive heart attack he's receiving social security disability benefits but he's being tonight benefits by this company for a year or so in our state you know in washington i think it is i think most states have a limited period where the state can answer for something well montana that's not your honor and while it is certainly far from a desirable situation i think no plaintiff's attorney wants things to work out this way the fact of the matter is that legally and i circuit it's crystal clear that for six in relationship to this is that when the complaint is filed in the state court granted the jurisdictional obligation for diversity doesn't have to eat there at some point that issue gets resolved fourteen forty six is that you look at the complaint in a form of space that doesn't appear or it appears that diversity exists then you make you must make credit broker correct and in that situation why wouldn't the statute just put the burden on that on the defendant if the defendant wants to remove the case to investigate with judge king and can assure all which seems to be the primary issue here and that is us thirty days but you have no way to serve any discovery on the point is to find out what they know about it but in this case i within your client's ability to make this determination but the rule you're arguing for is a broader rule which makes some sense because not everybody has it in their client's file the answer to this big question so we're kind of torn here between what might be a general rule that you propose and you'd like to come under the benefit of that rule and the specific circumstances where your client pretty clear from the allegations of the complaint even though the word citizenship wasn't used that the guy was a resident why apparently had been there for a long period of time in this case once in determining you don't know where th of the federal government that's not the way the system is supposed to work the second paragraph the fourteenth forty six b makes very clear that when the case stated is not removable this case as it turns out was always removable and the judge king outlined makes perfect sense and and particularly in this case his his language is chillingly accurate he says is that bennett entitled to sit on his rights to remove until such time as he deems an egregious opportunity to debate and swanberg old traditional resources and the resources of the adversary we went through a scheduling conference we went through discovery requests which they objected to where we asked for the identity and location state court ten months before you were on the verge of trial we had a trial starting in february of two thousand and four we had our scheduling conference and june of two thousand and three are expert disclosure was in october of two thousand  state court set aside time and resources and parties prepared their things and then they didn't like the schedule they wanted to change we said we want our trial date and they pop us in federal court and judge king's ruling i want to comment that my experience on this court has been that the counsel from montana are always well for fair they're good lawyers and they have a wonderful relationship with the professional rescue of one another so i just want we're not gonna put our campaign but thank you