the underlying district court had federal matter just fiction on two grounds that is complete preemption under the railway labor act because the claims act issue will require the interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement between mr johnson the way labor act preemption is normal preemption in other words is it's not automatically a federal claim in the same way that certain other areas and  aligned with the supreme court's decision in hawaii airlines which said that even wrongful destruction claims that require interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement are still completely preempted well i don't know that hughes rule so narrowly because of course if you've got three on one claim that's one thing but where there's interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement that i can't see any case in which railway labor act interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement which is not the case here we've talked about two points in the collective bargaining agreement that will absolutely need to be interpreted wrong but  your briefs and your materials keep talking about illinois employees and i don't i'm having trouble finding something in the record that shows where the minimal not illinois or delaware and that the pleadings are woefully deficient in this respect you're the ones who removed this and so that's your problem understanding  available but that's not evidence of citizenship you can get discovery you know as happens in cases under either the regular diversity jurisdiction of the action fairness act and on top of that if there had been discovery there are some mumbling in the background that the exceptions to the class action fairness act may be triggered here where it's an illinois citizen and a class of overwhelmingly in the place where they work i have the top of my head can think of all sorts of people who are living in northern indiana by the beach and they do to flee driving and those members of this report for example who are not  the papers he's the whole they are asking for an illinois flag why illinois biometric information privacy act applied to people who live in wisconsin that matter is not removed case like this one the absence of subject matter jurisdiction at the time of removal means that this case this case never belonged in federal court to begin with and it therefore must be reminded at its core of why did it lacks subject matter you're at least the inference i'm drawing from what you're saying which you can disabuse me of if you want to but the inference i'm drawing is that the last thing in the world you want to say is that there is no concrete injury sufficien three article three standing requirements of injury in fact and of causation in every traceability because there are other cases including the next case coming up before this court in which classes of plaintiffs that's kind of the natural position for you we do have these weird situations where united is their campaign of rights of your clients and you are there saying no no no they don't have any rights but you actually don't want to say that out loud so so it seems to me maybe we should all just agree that article three standing isn't a problem here unless you think it is well in your honor i understand that illinois has a different set of standards we all understand illinois law but for right now we're talking about court understood the editor and it's not it's not accurate to say that we don't take up positions on article three we do say in the briefing that we think that the district court was correct and that the case remained it and that the district court's ruling should be affirmed so it's are highly likely to decide well your honor it's an issue that the court can't reach unless it st determines the threshold matter that removal is proper well there i think you're making point three different point removal issue about the complete preemption doctrine in the class action fairness act they may be the kind of issue that the supreme court was talking that or were gassed where maybe we don't have to think about article three me to address that would invite the court to render an advisory no no not a hypothetical subject that's not before the court i think that's not right actually it's correct  answer judges questions but there are sometimes consequences well if you're out of this situation has come up multiple times in the northern district of illinois before judges like judge tao and others who have encountered situations where a defendant removes a case and then immediately turns around and challenges article three jurisdiction and what the courts have held in those situations i'm asking what district courts have held that we are asking what your position surrounding article three jurisdiction in these cases involving statutory privacy claims but we also acknowledge that there is some doubt as to whether the facts here would meet the standards articulated that if the court were to determined that removal was proper and it had a federal subject matter jurisdiction either under section thirty one dollars way or the on or the class action fairness act then it would be able to reach  controversy because your clients did not suffer injury in fact you've been asked expressively i know you're trying to you're trying to tiptoe so much that you haven't wasted your entire oral argument and aren't going to get to address the merits but the thing you are tiptoeing around whether your clients have suffered injury in fact is something i don't understand why you are on willing to assert that they at least there's some important strategic goal t trying to achieve by refusing to assert that your client's with an injured your honor it's it's a question of where this case belongs and which court has properly has jurisdiction over this case these are fundamental issues it's not a matter of strategy it's not a matter of tiptoeing these are important issues leaders are those you have an obligation labor is refusing to answer questions from jurisdiction and they can stipulate that there is not we have to decide on our own itself on the mental requirement of judges and we are entitled to the a system scar which you are not providing understood your honor and in this situation in this case both parties are are taking the position that there is no article three jurisdiction all right i'm going to take that as your answer and that will be your argument