barred removal of the matter because cap and saying as claims do not fall within the district court's original jurisdiction and there's no diversity without subject matter jurisdiction the district court should have sent the matter back to sta without a ruling on the merits of the other issues the second reason why we are in front of this court is the district court of use discretion by holding there was no personal jurisdiction because navigate the epperly fail to provide any evidence to controvert the primer facia evidence submitted by captains saying up showing personal jurisdiction existed over navigate dirt since now fail to meet their burden of showing that singapore wasn't available and adequate for whom the district court abused discretion by dismissing in a form not inconvenienced therefore we asked this court to hold this matter should be reversed and remanded back to state court more difficult then it was proper or at least something for him to address personally your station your address and it and i believe that there's a two part answer to that question the first with respect to is the issue of subject matter jurisdiction in this matter novel we'd answer no it's not a novel issue at the time the district court rendered its opinion given the jurisprudence at the district level outlining each of the issues protecting the saving the sitter's closet removal bar the district court had a straightforward record and basis to move and say there is no subject matter jurisdiction without having to consider personal matter  so that's the first part of it wasn't novel i believe that the fifth circuit was not well outside of the fact that there's fifty nine other district court opinions which say that removal is inappropriate but there's also some guidance from this court in the barker opinion which indicates that we're move a would have been appropriate on top of that there is long slides and then a difficult issue to say which  reason why you can't automatically get rid of all of those cases and have them heard only in federal court is is two reasons why when we went to the supreme court decision in your marrow because there are federal concerns there has to be clear and direct language and a powerful presumption against such an interpretation the state courts won't have the ability to administer maritime law so that's that's the starting hinky is when you don't have a federal question or diversity can you were moved this case which is what happened in this matter there is no diversity there is no federal question and so it should have never been removed you need an additional jurisdictional grant take it away from the state court and if we don't if we do allow who the removal without an additional jurisdictional grant we're really defyin similar although that one was prior and was determined prior to the two thousand and eleven clarification it did contemplate what the meaning of the clarification was and in that instance this court found that you remove cases unless there's an additional jurisdictional grant now parker was a little different because it was an oxe law case and so there it's a prime example of when congress acts listen lee comes in and says this maritime issue may all only be hoed by a federal court and that's not what i'm saying it don't make it sound well if it were maryland the supreme court would tell is you have to have something well it hasn't when and if there's additional jurisdictional grounds i will concede yeah you can remove them potentially but when there isn't when you don't have diversity or something like that then you cannot remove the jurisdiction and houses is that novel and there might be some disagreement with respect to that but in our opinion when you've got courts from all over the country including fourteen of from the southern district all saying that removal is improper it's no longer novel and it bears noting justice miller is the first one to start the discussion that removals appropriate ended up changing his mind a couple years that it is not a novel ishmael and with we're spec to the personal jurisdiction we obviously believe that there is an abuse of discretion because of the lack of affidavit he states that there was continuous and substantial connections to the state of texas and that in and out all the time and he also gave details as to why they were specific jurisdiction explaining how the e mails how this catastrophic of fex in texas and not get made the choice not to contest any of that and so at that point if you are if the court is inclined to look at personal jurisdiction in that instance it also is there wasn't anything to conduct for the primer facia evidence which was there which is all that was needed because no evidentiary hearing was conducted and said their choice not to chime contest any of that which they easily could have overturned and talks about that it is firmly rooted in the state's crucial role and due to those serious needs there has to be an ex illicit expansion of federal district courts power to hear those cases and as discussed in the dark a case oxford is a prime example of where congress came in and said these cases have to be heard by there's no law providing exclusive federal jurisdiction over these common law claims and therefore the state court was properly allowing for that were move all would actually ren claim that woman who was appropriate a review of the law a review of the clarification of fourteen forty one and the plain reading of fourteen forty one doesn't support that contention and not to amend the save in a suitor's clause and congress made the choice not to add language in fourteen forty one preventing maritime claims from being heard by the states court and because of  that there wouldn't have been subject matter jurisdiction because it should have stayed in state court without any additional diversity or federal question and soon that's why the district court should a found there changed if i may i it's interesting you say the word amendment and the reason why i say it's interesting is this court in that book a court made a point in its opinion to say this is an amendment it's a clarification and even more telling is that i mean i don't know what the difference is well for example if fourteen forty one and i mean everything i want you a moment i guess maybe the amendment didn't change to support my point but even the title of what occurred is interesting where congress called it the federal court's jurisdiction and venue clarification act of twenty eleven rather than an amendment and the reason why i think that's important is you might have had an x plus of expansion or reduction of powers and that would have been an amendment would have in effect a change whereas congress is telling us this isn't a change we're keeping things the same we're just changing some of the language to make it clearer and easier for folks to make a determination with the respect to diversity so at that point that it does somewhat make a difference with respect to the language and this court made a point of making provided by act of congress any civil action brought in the state court which the district courts of the united states have original jurisdiction may be removed is this court stated in baldwin versus sears roebuck unless there is an express declaration by congress to the contrary all types of civil actions in which there is concurrent original jurisdiction in both federal and state courts are removable the only statute that the plaintiff points to and that supposedly prohibits removal is the savings to souter's clause otherwise entitled it doesn't say a word about room there is no way to read the savings to sitters clause as an express prohibition of removal what's more as authorities know less than right and never point out into look at the historical context of that language prior to them not to the sympathetic federal civil procedure there are three kinds of cases that can be filed by a private litigant in federal court suits common law suits in equity and in the whole thing i mean the courts have flexibility to allow jury trials there's nothing that prohibits a jury trial in applications you know that is it's not mandated but it's but it certainly can be permitted oh i'm the only you know  in federal court based on arising under jurisdiction under section two hundred thirty one and the court held that the court had subject matter jurisdiction over the case after it was removed well if the court has subject matter jurisdiction that arising under cases other than cases where jurisdiction was based on thirteen thirty one what the amendments do as they say now they and so that so admirably cases were cases all other cases and this loss were subject to been asleep at the wheel for about fifty years and acting on the same assumption as the courts well you can't remove an adamant days after the amendments people looked at the statute which of course is where you ought to look first i s it and and when you have i mean this court has said that when you have an unambiguous statute you stop looking you know that that's the starting point and the ending point and this case two of the federal rules of civil procedure says there shall be one form of action the civil action and that's the rule that makes advocates civil actions so since nine hundred sixty six admiralty cases should have been removal and just no this i'm reminded of them something my mentor branch gilmore told me he told me when i was studying with him that when he had said when when charlie black and i started writing the law that will be no one knew less pointed out that's what the say what the saving of souter's clause preserves is remedies not forms back in that back in the i want to say was eighty forty's in the most taylor justice field said is not a remedy in the common law courts which is safe but common  remedy and this court has repeatedly stated that you know the plain of does not have a right to choose for if there is a basis to move the case and as a pointed out there's nothing that prohibits jury trials in  maritime case based upon it of arsene a federal question and you get a different set of procedural rules because you get the federal rules of civil procedure rather than the procedural rules that would have applied in the state court no one has ever don't like to point out a a ruling that you can remove a case based upon admiralty jurisdictional on it's going to affect a relatively small number of cases the vast majority of maritime cases presumably if there were you know if that's that's an expression example of an express prohibition as envisioned by section forty forty one if you go beyond that many many maritime cases are based on a  subject matter jurisdiction the removal jurisdiction question is even simpler because it turns on the language of an unambiguous statute the person in a pretty good that would we have to remand the district we uphold the district court on the basis of personal jurisdiction that the case should be remanded statute it's not a difficult decision that all of the language in all the cases since since romero are is our dictum there there's never been a case that if you look at the what you were asking what this page a for the record oh yes that was just i was going to say that gives the coordinates of where the vessel where the plane it was was located at the time the e mails were sent and if you if you he addressed both issues rebuttal i believe that there are two statements which are quite telling from the arguments that we've just heard the first is the concession that the subject matter jurisdiction analysis wasn't now the second in conjunction is that the twenty eleven clarification has nothing to do with this case here's why that's important there is no abundance of last decade's worth coming from the supreme court on down which all find that last there is  indicates to us there has to be something extra otherwise then the savings a serious cause is absolutely meaningless why else would they have carved out the ability to file and state i mean obviously  your respect for savings to seize call and call it mom or move if it is removable they get the same rights as is they would yet if it were interesting court on the same instances and that's correct and that's why we have  the lenten case from this court specifically kind of identifies it doesn't that federal jurisdiction doesn't touch on if there's a jury trial in that instance the plaintiff made the option not to seek out a jury trial and the defendant  there is no such thing as a discretionary enjoying trouble that would be a new animal for those where you can just go ahead and determine hey we know that the law says something different but we're going to go ahead allow for a jury trial and that would arbitrarily allow for defendants to make the decision of we're going to go allow for this but it would but there are other state remedies and all of the cases when they talk about this it's they jenna five the seventh amendment first and foremost and they always say and preserve their other state remedy after all this discussion that we've had showing a person jurisdiction because no evidence or hearing was heard what ended up happening is on the other side they fail to controvert any of the evidence and so that's also why we allege that the district court in pugh's discretion when it came to personal jurisdiction they had every chance every opportunity to say that the affidavit is wrong or that pleadings are wrong they never contested either general juist action or specific jurisdiction they just let it sit and because they chose not to controvert that the district court also abused discretion because there was ample evidence to support a finding of personal jurisdiction which is in the briefing  failure is why the district court was abused this question so while i'm not conceding that this is as some sort of compton issue on the subject matter i will say if the court then decides to look at personal jurisdiction first there still was an abuse of discretion because there wasn't the contesting of the evidence if that occurred it would be a different matter thank you they know but