good morning honors may it please the court my name is lauren cochran for the appellant clifton would be i'd like to reserve two minutes if i can and i will keep an eye on the clock this is a pretty straightforward question in this particular case as you saw the record is rather light but it's a question that has not yet to my knowledge been decided by the ninth circuit it has been decided in a myriad of different ways by various courts but the central question is is the rule that there is a temporal restriction on the application of state laws governing service of process such that once a case has been removed to federal court state law governing service a process can no longer be applied even t activity that occurred prior to removal or as the district court ruled in this case to state service laws do do state service last still apply after removal as judge layton ruled in this  case isn't there let me rephrase the question slightly and see if you can help me yes here is do you agree that the statute of limitations in this case expired before the case was removed before it was actually removed yes yes your honor i have to look yeah i think you do too and i don't find the case law in conflict on that issue i'm not sure this the circuits ever spoken to it but at least two other circuits have said removal doesn't revive a case that would have been that was time barred before removal how do you deal with that will i look at that a look at the approach that was taken in bell meister in the new mexico the new mexico case excuse me and i look at the court in lawrence v hanson which is the western district of virginia but i'm going to ask a slightly different i think i agree with the general proposition that if the case isn't time barred on the date of remov then fourteen forty eight and four am apply and you have one hundred twenty days or not to serve but but i don't think any of those cases dealt with a case with a case in which the suit was time barred under state law on the date of remov that's what that's the difficulty i have and my understanding is lawrence v hanson was and i would agree with the court's reading regarding bell meister there was some generalities as to whether or not the new mexico law there had an open ended service question so that if you were reasonably diligent in trying to serve that the court could look at that and find that there was substantial compliance so here's my it may be a different way of phrasing th moved to dismiss the complaint in state court and they would have been successful because it was time aren't at that point and i guess i'm searching for a rationale that would allow what to me is kind of an unusual decision not to do that but instead to go to federal court i don't understand why that revives and otherwise the court will allow me the idea is if the defendants had a valid argument for dismissal based on insufficient state service they could have moved the court for relief instead defendants chose to exercise their right to remove the case to the federal system that service statue of limitations well i mean the statute of limitations is is it's only a matter of state law and if it's run and you don't have an argument so let's take another hypothetical this limitations seems to have run but you have an argument discovery or fraud or whatever it is how it hasn't really done that it was actually told for some period now the case is removed in your federal court and you have an argument that the statute has not run what happens then well i'm not sure if this is on all fours with your scenario but take this particular case where we know that there's actual notice to all the players involved  of limitations on its surface right and i guess what i would ask the court to look at is the statute of limitations once this was removed would have allowed for substantial compliance which is what state law does not have limitations  well yes your honor but the reason that service a process is a part of statute of limitations in this case is because the complaint was filed in an order the complaint was filed a month and a half before the statu claims if they were filed in federal district court then substantial compliance would only be would the statue would have been told at the time of filing where they found in federal district court gratz correct and then we would have been dealing with whether there was sufficiency or process here under washington law the statute of limitations is not satisfied it's not whatever the right wording is until not only it's filed but served and you agree that that we adopt that state law would govern up and at least until the time of removal well i do up until the time of removal yes so we're still stuck with the question i think that we've all asked and sort of different ways which is that time barred at the time of removal what federal law revives what fourteen forty eight twenty eight u s c fourteen forty eight says look once it is removed we are on the federal time clock so the court that just occurred could have gotten personal jurisdiction over the individuals under fourteen forty eight but that doesn't revive this edge of limitations as it where does it's in fourteen forty eight that would revive this limitation well then we would the plain language of fourteen forty eight but i and see how the ad effects the state reading of this edge of limitations well i guess i go back at that point to then you're looking at substantial compliance the only reason that this would have the statute of limitations would have run at the state level is because washington state has a very strict service requirement so the complaint is filed washington state has an absolute non forgiveness and that cannot be disputed the  again then we go into substantial compliance and we look at whether or not there has been service and the complaint has been filed and service has been affected at least for substantial compliance which we argue was in this insufficient and this edge of limitations ran isn't that the timeline we're dealing with well in less you look at the plain language of section fourteen forty eight which is that you are looking entirely at the federal timeline at that point i think we understand your position did you want to say or i mean if you are saying that last minute for any questions thank you  that in january or february or march of two thousand and fourteen the defendants could have moved to dismiss the case in state court for running of the statute of limitations and would have been successful as far as i can tell from this record is the decision not to do that but instead to seek remove all a waiver of the statute of limitations it is not your honor it's well settled among the circuit and other circuits that by removing a defendant waives nothing nothing it's simply a different forum to address what question could have been addressed at the state level but it doesn't actually matter what the reason may or point was but it's just baffled me why this case was ever removed as i say it probably doesn't matter to the outcome but it just really didn't understand why that would have been and that is pierce county and eugene allen's position that for purposes of this appeal and the issue that's before this appeal i guess the strategy behind removal to federal court is the irrelevant to the question of whether this is just me scratching my head but it's always irrelevant but it always trouble this puzzled by why ultimately what this case needs to decide is whether twenty eight u s c section fourteen forty eight and a defendant's removal to federal court revives an otherwise dead case and confers jurisdiction on a court that had none we have any cases they deal with that in the circuit  i've found some from other circuits no your honor ninth circuit has not addressed this particular issue and the cases that the plaintiff relies on for the opposite proposition in those cases the underlying state case was not truly dead for instance he relies heavily on palm ice or be in new mexico and in that case the new mexico statutes required service i'm sorry required filing of the quote complaint within the statute of limitations but their service statute was nothing like washington's i as he indicated washington service statute is absolute there is absolute non forgiveness if you don't comply with the date let me give you the same hypothetical i gave to the opposing counsel which is let's say that the case is removed mr he has an argument that this act of limitations has run because of the discovery rule or some other principles what would happen then couldn't the court couldn't he then serve process pierce county and then make these arguments in a district court ultimately that would be up to the federal district court back court because service was attempted or there was some argument with reference to why service couldn't be completed sufficient at the state level applying washington law to the analysis or it could be there might be some other reason that the statue of limitations had run such as it had been told for a period to they didn't know or didn't couldn't reasonably have discovered you know what the problem was not with respect to service of process but with respect to when the injury occurred i mean here i guess it's it's pretty well known when it commands but say in a different case it was eventually service on your client's right correct and the district court after that eventual service was affected found that it nonetheless the statute of limitations had run correct so it's not they didn't the county's argument and eugene allen's argument is that fourteen forty eight does not revive an otherwise time barred case and as i indicated earlier the cases that plaintiff relies on are distinguishable on their facts in all of the cases that he relies on the cases were not truly dead at the state level because the service provision is had either reasonable diligence provisions that did not have a drop dead date for service as the washington statute on service does as you discussed lawrence lawrence v wallace is directly contrary to the ninth circuit's opinion only versus city of beaumont lawrence v hanson was a case where the court applied federal law to analyze service a process that occurred city in beaumont the ninth circuit in that case has specifically rejected that approach and has said that no prior to removal a court's going to analyze the sufficiency of service a process based on state law once removal is made yes they do it analyze subsequent federal service or process under federal law so in this case the court needs to analyze the service on eugene allen pre removal based on washington state service loss post removal as when service of the county occurred and so your honour's would look at whether the process was sufficient on the county basis federal rules and federal rule for so and i disagree that in lawrence v hanson that was a case where the underlying case was legally dead that was a virginia statute and as the other cases show in virginia the service statutes allow a plaintiff to take a non suit at any time up until a dispositive mo i would point out is it and i indicated in my brief that there are several policy arguments that also support the county and eugene allen's position in this case that fourteen forty eight does not revive an otherwise time barred lawsuit obviously the states  have there is a purpose behind the statute of limitations and there is a support that washington litigants can have finality in lawsuits and that is the  opponent doesn't doesn't dispute this was served on the wrong was served on the your party i disagree your honor i thought the record indicated that this was passed on to the county attorney but i said i was i disagree that eugene allen had notice of this law suit prior to the statute of the counties to county certainly did the county certainly did eugene allen is a retired you're making policy arguments on behalf of the state seeking repose on claims against it and it seems to me there shouldn't there was a lawsuit out there but if your honour's are looking at fourteen forty eight and issuing an opinion that analyzes that and the issue before this which is whether whether that statute in any case revives a time barred lawsuit i think your honour's have to consider that the state interest in having finality of litigation and that it is the state's interest that sets the statute of limitations and this goes back to the policies underlying the doctrines of erie and hand of the plumber that federal courts need to be respectful of the state law particularly in this case where it's a state statute a limitation ask you one more question if you would remove the case before the state statute of limitations had run yes do you agree that then under fourteen forty eight the plaintiff would have had one hundred twenty days to serve to  form over substance and your honor you hit on all of the most important parts of this particular case at least if the how do i get past how do i could get past the four well again i think if the state process ends at the point of removal and the federal court takes over its argument that at that point substantial compliance with service a process is in effect in they cannot argue that they didn't have substantial compliance well before the statute of limitations in state court he served the county not properly but he sort of the county through its risk manager the record clearly shows that the prosecuting attorney received it and the sheriff's office received it and then they laid  wait they laid in wait until the statute of limitations ran it was well past the point that it ran then they removed from federal court form over substance just shouldn't be the policy that we are pursuing this particular case and i'm over time thank you counsel the case just are you just submitted and we appreciate the helpful comments from both of you