pharmacy and the amount accounts or well over seventy five thousand dollars and so the allegations that were made in the content of the briefing  national case i'd like to highlight three things st washington national disavows looking at the underlying jurisdiction for purposes of understanding diversity what happened with regard to the amount of controversy in washington national requires a little bit of digging in i think an issue that is kind of raised by the manner in which that case is characterized in the reply in washington national if you look underlying district court case that underlying district court case relies on nd nd circuit authority d which says you can look at the consequences of the litigation in order washington national case through to the arbitration rather the washington nationals case ended up with what i think would be a different result from this court based on the nd circuit having kind of a different rule regarding what  as consequences versus the no collateral let me let me let me frame the question a little bit differently for sure we've never addressed the th circuit is because i can tell how to determine the amount of controversy in  that can be used or the value that can be reaped from that in some subsequent proceedings and we've cited your honor the chorale case which is a more recent case from two thousand and seventeen regarding a temporary are and what it is now i don't think i think if attorney fees are going to be utilized to prepare for the hearing in question yes but i think it would be kind of it would be absurd if a party like a health options could drag this up to the th circuit and because it got dragged up to the th circuit that then be considered you have pointed out that when we tell you what troubles me about it you're telling us this is relatively useless information only worth the to what it was going to be incurring cost that they believe recoverable and now at the risk your honor kind of jumping to one of the three topics i want to make sure that i haven't dodged anything on wash washington national but the jump back to what i said was going to be one of my position in the free what happened in this particular case is the trial court gave an opportunity for supplemental briefing and in this case health options completely failed to provide adequate non speculative information with foundation and that would go towards something that the trial court could measure as the cost or value in this  help options rather help health options and diverted to an argument based on m g m look at the arbitration and it provided a very limited and ineffectual affidavit or seventy five thousand dollars and that's just a failure your honor in this particular case for them to present help options have to have presented evidence in this case and that was within the proper measure that it's up to the other side to provide adequate evidence and so the trial court here and cited the royal merchants case which is that it's a district court case out of utah  case if it applied here i think this is an exceptional case where as opposed to your hypothetical where discovery would be conducted and perhaps revisited the amount would be revisited here this is the short term amount don't think it applies in these cases and we don't think it applies and we think the court was right in saying that the failure of the burden was on the health systems of options excuse me because they never made so that it doesn't meet their burden and they didn't provide even if the court was going to adopt some kind of hybrid approach where a value based on the collateral they didn't provide sufficient valid evidence from th move the burden to albertsons on the legal certainty so we're not asserting that legal certainty doesn't apply we assert that maybe there should be an exception in cases like this which are different than your typical complaint with the parties where the more important thing though is here they just they dropped the ball and they can't to contend otherwise they got another bite at the apple they didn't provide an affidavit that had any meat on it that was d even based on firsthand information and they made an argument that was fully based on a collateral seating which is contrary to the collateral effect rule and then i circuit counsel can i can i jump in because you are worth a run at the time of course that you can look at it i understand it you can look at the value but the case in the nd circuit is you consider the value of the case in question based on the consequences you can consider the consequences in that case i don't think think any action intersection seven is an independent action under the existing case law and if it's an independent action they need to fund provide an independent basis for that independent action under diverse how how do you see how do you square that with the way we handle things in the rule forty five context that's what i don't understand well it's a different rule your honor that the because risk made the decision not to provide federal question jurisdiction and congress made the decision and the  established that in order to get federal jurisdiction or a arbitration case you've got to meet either federal question or diversity yeah but let's assume that there is diversity jurisdiction as between the parties to the underlying arbitration controversy just like there could be in a federal district court case that's outside the arbitration context right so there's diversity based on the underlying dispute between the the real parties to the action a dispute with understand why that wouldn't be true in the arbitration context as well your honor if not i think it's different because it was simply no authority for what i understand the court thinks should be the rule there's just no st i i would have been stopped five at the time but i would have been around fifty years ago so i do remember that but but your honor the the one of the real issues here too is the policy why is it fair for albertsons to get dragged into an arbitration without any protection that is afforded through something like diversity or federal question a but it's only it's really only a question of what court in fo the question here is why are we in federal court where there's a question about jurisdiction and i do balk at the idea that a rd party like albertson's could be brought in which i i do believe it's much more meaningful way  doesn't really make much of a difference in terms of the burden on you then i think the burden would be different if there were just ancillary jurisdictions for any federal court to drag a party like albertson's and bust the other side which i a much better perspective than i do and the impact on federal courts of having to take go up these matters is it would be a burden that they don't need and in very quickly if i could it's not the case by the way but the concept of compliance rule means you never have federal jurisdiction it means you only have it where there is a significant amount and i would direct this court's attention to the excerpts of record  of rhode island the court said we don't know whether we look at the underlying jurisdiction we don't know where they looked at the cost of compliance you know what we don't need to worry about that because the cost of compliance here exceed seventy five thousand dollars so i think it's fair for the court to know that there's a couple of matters like this with me now it's kind of a cottage industry that's arisen in this particular arbitration where under the facade of hearings they're conducting pretrial should be placed on the ability for a for an arbitration panel to get discovery it's clunky right now but the rules work and they provide some protection they also direct in force either in the state court system or the federal court system some oversight which could help protect a company like albertson's again we're reaching traders who and who knows what some of these are traders qualifications are if we just follow the federal jurisdiction the cases that matter a lot are going to end up in federal court like the c v s otherwise you're going to be in state court where they they can be relatively efficiently dealt with counsel you're just one last question the other anomaly of your position is you could have an underlying arbitration controversy let's say between two parties who are not diverse so the federal courts are never going to be able to get involved they couldn't get involved under section four to compel arbitration they can't get involved on the back end under section nine hundred and eleven to confirm or vacate the award so congress has basically said federal courts may want you to stay out of this but under your view the only thing that a federal court to get involved with under sections that would be under section seven to support and force this rd party subpoena and that makes no sense but the whole purpose of the essay was to have federal courts step in to supervise the underlying arbitration controversy to make sure that the parties actually you know carry out their agreement but under your view you could have the federal court just jumping in to support this one little rd party subpoena and the federal courts would be unable to do take any other action with respect to the the matter being arbitrated have i just don't see how we we would read the essay and to to mandate that where you are i think the only thing i could could say is the rule  what we're urging is consistent with the rule and there is no overriding rule that federal courts always have authority over arbitrations they just don't you've got to meet a federal question or you've got to meet diversity urging is not the rule were urging shouldn't i think mean that there should be more oversight of the arbitration is where there's not it's just in a particular instance where for whatever reason they choose not to go to state court and they choose to put the burden on federal court so it's got to meet the diversity requirements just like anybody else who's imposing upon the federal court system and we've taken you well over time to one more question i don't understand but the issue with regard to federal court jurisdiction is the same one that's being raised by the other pharmacies that are being dragged into this process by maine and other courts which is you don't have jurisdiction so your honor i guess which also could be r question why do you want to be in state court albertson's my client believes that the state court will more efficiently and fairly deal with it and my client believes that there's some risk of fighting a battle in front of this court regarding discovery the federal court already discovery only to find out perhaps when the federal court reconsiders it the federal court that ruled on it did not properly have jurisdiction that is why when you look at the ex you say well i do think the supreme court has led as i know that's a very unjust you're looking at the amount in the underlying thing but you're really making a diversity on i'm asking whether or not the supreme court as