is this court did not have jurisdiction until march twenty first two thousand and sixteen because there was not a final entered until march twenty first two thousand and sixteen so it is axiomatic that we cannot before the term and whether or not a consolidation order is going to invoke a fifty four b and i think all those factors applied except for the consolidation for trial purposes which is everyone johnson we're going to never have all had the same attorney which is arthur all had the same claims the defendants were all the same the orders that we're appealing from were all the same everything is essentially identical the only difference is the name of the particular when there is a final word or in a case that has not been consolidated with others for all purposes i think in a circumstance like this one your honor where all of the claims of the same tourney's are the same the defendants are the same and the issues on appeal would be the we disagree on the johnson appeal and we certainly disagree on the reading of men for one thing counsel for the first responders today argues as if it's only his in those three cases that were consolidated for case management and discovered purpose in the district court impact all the polls personal injury cases were consolidated for discovery and case management purposes and so under them the only way that johnson's appeal could be timely would be if this court would i would submit the cases all the pulp or the railing cases because that's what those were all they were just they were all consolidated for case management and discovery not trial the complaints are not identical the attorneys are not identical we've seen two  attorneys here today and there are more there are different places with different interests the cases would not have been tried together and in fact been tried together one of the cases the morse case which this court has stayed was tried separately so we language if it even makes a difference and i have to tell you that i've been trying to play with god in my own head to look at what is is perhaps an artful writing and certainly if there's any plaintiffs and given governing state law damages could not be worded as a matter of law and shipper seems to anticipate that type of claim is as one of the legal one possibility but w that we take is part of the lifecycle of a case not something that retroactively deprives a district court of jurisdiction you're exactly right here in facts with the district court had done here we would have there would be a different issue went through each element of damages not based on his rulings on medical monitoring fear of cancer emotional distress whatever but based on exactly what a district court events that it says ok now there's you know you can't meet the amount of controversy the court was very careful to say nothing changed nothing changed the compensatory damages didn't change they were minimal minimal this spring into legend juries were dizzy tired coughing these were revelations what was revealed was what existed as a the date of the complaint subject matter jurisdiction ruling on it other wings and i do know clearly there is some place where besides the merits rulings on the jurisdictional rulings they're not as says to exist at the time of the fall of the complaint that we could disregard well your honor the that that is true but the factual findings are poor because they couldn't they damages the physical damages were very minor as a matter of law the emotional stress damages would not be recoverable and as a matter of fact based on the factual findings of the field during discovery plaintiffs could not come close to the new jersey standard but punitive damages and for those reasons we believe that district work was correct at the end of the day based on what was revealed to determine that it lacks issues of pollution as the parties british make quite clear they reach for pills that has looked at the issue of whether negligent trading claims are created by the federal regulations have concluded that they are in yes and i say that for a couple of reasons first part two forty two is modeled after an substantially the same as part two forty which every court which is look at the issue itself does have a pretty good fact the only difference being  client in this case the state will claim they saw pursue was a flight that the crew for not properly trained and qualified we would look and see are there federal regulations that let's cover that subject matter and the answer is clearly yes to two and two seventeen and how they relate together but in this case to get to the first part of your question two forty two point zero nine and the other regulations are two forty two car rules not required to begin treating its employees on those regulations issue that they were raised by that deals with territorial qualifications of employees that is a different subject matter from training and the motion that we filed and the ruling through the district court was that training claims are preempted and that never changed nothing in the record ever changed as to the training he refused to rule it or to seventeen and up to forty and then later to two forty the only thing they argue with most reconsideration is well now we found this document that says might be a requirement to train employees on how to do with great caution access because that is a circumstance in which they were deployed might find himself or herself had nothing to do with who was trained and qualified to do the job