exercise durst action over a federal program of the implementation and marketing of medicare advantage plan by lies in this case simply about the fact that you didn't ask for a  something you waited more than the time in your very argument about why this is a federal question is one that would should just that you would have been able to do this in plenty so that that that is one point but also in the complaint itself it's not clear that they're talking about his attempts to market medicare advantage plans it could be talking about attempts to  federal issue that were in the complaint so if is that is so then why isn't that enough for you to look and say this is something that of this case the respondent is not taken into consideration he removed based on information by his own investigation by his own knowledge of the facts not the complaint itself with respect to that issue the putting statute of planning rule doesn't mean that states get to decide the plain meaning of federal statutes is a federal statute and  now we're going to decide what state court means why should it include this kind of stain agency well because eventually this this i think it should include the state agency i know you think so but if the statute jurisdiction it's it's a very important public policy different from the federal government and if we allow the states to so easily frustrated by well by bringing actions against federal officers and in any court and a statute could be passed to deal with that and so you can you can remove things from state agencies when some issues of federal something i'm not even sure that there are any issues of read this but but but if it is such a terrible thing is that you can be passed they haven't passed but until then we run the risk of there being that the new commissioners overseeing a federal but the policy issues in this case i would say are enough team to cause me to write a statute and very i think i think that the plain meaning does include something of this nature and i think that if you really consider the policies and and what you define as a civil action as as in any proceeding to the extent that seeks a jit judicial  or testimony or documents that's that's what's happening here why should this be treated differently thank you thank you here the other side on timely it's it's in in my view it's it's it's absolutely obvious that this was an untimely attempt to remove an agency a civil action the federal  court mr burns doesn't dispute that he was over the thirty day window he instead he claims that because removal was based on the federal officer removal statute and the commissioner's pleading did not provide or alert him to the lobster jurisdiction and that that the removal clock was never triggered however one ok so is that a basis for a mobile well it certainly is and look at look at paragraph forty seven dollars of that page involved the commissioner's claims necessarily raise a federal issue to wit preemption under federal law the one overriding federal issue that predominates on the basis of each count of the complaint you're saying that that certainly the federal preemption issue was not bona fide because there is an exception for state license our point of the time you can you tell right away that there is federal jurisdiction or does it take you some time to intelligently ascertain it some time does not give them some additional time on the thirty day clock goner it doesn't take any time again going to paragraph forty seven dollars your argument your argument is that no one looking at this could intelligently hastert claim that this federal officer jurisdiction and your honor mr wade claims that it's obvious to look look what he says a paragraph forty seven on the face of each count of the complaint he says that there's federal preemption so bed argument that if it were a good argument it would be obvious on its face that's right but looking at basically looking at the complaint when we see that that there's a medicare related this involves medicare related insurance products we don't see beyond that which is there is a carve out in medicare for state licensure it's only after we do the research that we find that there's not a is that lank arguing that that the court should have considered sort of federal interest in making that plain meaning real analysis but we don't do that we just simply look at whether or not the word used by the legislature is clear and on the  whether or not the term is used within the statutory scheme in a cook coherent consistent manner and that is we don't look at any interests we don't look at any interest unless this court were to choose the functional clean water act the court specifically rejected the functional approach and volkswagen the puerto rico which is the st circuit decision which which speaks  've addressed the arguments raised by mr burns counsel i'm happy to refer them to leave the remainder to my papers if you have any questions i'd be certainly interested and answering this time