to bring a lawsuit and change that decision into a ruling that the texas court judgment magically disappears and nobody has the right to enforce that this lawsuit arises from clear track and mr moore's attempts to collect on judgment that was r suffered no cause of action asserting that clear track no longer existed under the texas business what that argument was was simply  moore and clear track follow this lawsuit in order to attempt to preserve their rights so in response to that is how we get here in response that language follows a motion to dismiss for residue to ca the trough were granted that motion as a clear track and somewhat surprisingly also granted as to mr moore now i'll explain why i don't think president kind of applies at all in this case but even if it applies to the claims of clear track it certainly doesn't apply to the claims the judgment state court and under louisiana law a suspense of appeal suspends the judgment however subsequently we really learn or realize the more fundamental problem with the final judgment issue and in fact judgment cannot be and is not a final judgment that's exactly what happened in this case in a subsequent letter or if we have submitted we have sent a case to bent bankston versus doesn't win versus city of bastrop and succession of agony that all exclaim that problem and that there is no final judgment in this case so there can be no residue to follow now the nd significant problem is that the parties aren't the same and in fact the parties could be the same in state court clear track file to inforce the judge at that time clear track and mr moore believe the clear track with the only proper party to enforce that if a clear track exists as an entity it's clear track right to enforce if not it may be missed more of right but at that time everyone believed that it was clear trying trying now it's important to understand what did the force the jones texas business code provides for various provisions on how interest is operate with regard to this issue if an entity is being dissolved but if there are lawsuits or claims that have been brought before the rd anniversary of dissolution the entity survives until all judgments orders and decrees have been fully executed it's clear transposition that it still exists because the texas court said no we disagree with that clear track does not continue on as an entity that's all so based on that it dismissed the are granted the exception dismissing the state court action the issue comes in they also allow the opportunity for mr moore to substitute in an opposing counsel brings the argument says well if he was allowed the opportunity subsumed in he should have done that and we wouldn't be here court the problem is that is a fundamental piece to that the state court decision the defect that was perceived by the state court is not possible being sure we've cited to you taylor versus babbitt summit office park and the jones versus americas case that we have supplemented with regard to diversity issues and there really is no question on diversity that you know clear track is a texas corp type texas l l c mr moore is a texas bit and i understand that your honor we have submitted a subsequent brief with with in response to the court's request we have submitted a letter brief stating that exactly and providing the information to exactly where his office has been represented and shown that it is in texas in bryan taxes and that he continues to record on one show that he is a resident of texas you you know and and showing that that has not been raised there's not been an issue or d a question about everyone in this case as deemed to him to have been in texas own with regard to the amount in controversy it's a fairly  simple issue that this is really a discussion of whether the original judgment included the interest in the judgment or not because the texas judgment expressly included interest as a distinct element of the judgment that amount is included in the amount of controversy right miller has a clear section on this the distinction is whether the interest is provided in the judgment or whether the interest is some five percent this is not statutory answers that is just accruing because we have a judgment the judgment itself provided for the interests i didn't i honestly didn't didn't read right miller is that clear on this point it seems to be governed by supr one hundred and fifty thousand one hundred and sixty years old right if you have any circuit authority that you agree is two or is it really the best case you've got is this west virginia case from fifty years ago well you s supreme court has stated in brown versus webster that interest is included one is an essential ingredient in principle claim and that is included in the mountain controversy where the interest was a part of the plan of principle claimed rather than an accessory demand right miller actually discusses this exactly and what right miller says is if the judgment in one action includes interest the amount of controversy in a suit to recover on the proper judgement is measured by the amount of the  judgment including the interest and your honor we have cited i agree with you there is not a lot of circuit law out there is there any circuit well i have not found any any of the why isn't there i mean right miller goes into what seemed to me a fair pretty elemental and persuasive policy argument that what the supreme court was getting at that decision i guess came out just a couple of years after the original one thousand three hundred and thirty two dollars statutory language in question that excludes interest the concern would be to not allow a litigant to get a judgment and wait until the interest accrued sufficient to equal the amount of controversy but i would seem to be exactly what the rule of law you're urging would allow well your is the rd circuit case is not a th circuit based on this the williamson case which is a six circuit taste there is law on this issue and the distinction is we've been trying to collect this judgment for years it's not as though we've just been sitting out there saying we're going to wait for this gets to a certain mountain and go collect it we've been trying to collect this judgment and the distinction is if this was just a judgment in texas and the texas court said here's your judgment and accrue statutory interest no i agree with you it wouldn't be in the amount of controversy but the law's been very clear that when the judgment itself says this judgment includes interest x rate that is included in the amount of controversy to determine whether you have federal jurisdiction you're going back to the issue on receipt of kata the other issue that they've argued is that mr moore somehow is in privity with clear track well st of all he can't be in privity in this type of a case there right in state court was either the l l c is right or it was mr morris right so they could not in this type of case be in pretty however exist or continue to exist to bring the lawsuit so if you get to the decision of well this is also going to impact mr moore the only thing that can apply to him from rescue to public purposes is exactly that that clear track doesn't exist doesn't have anything to do with whether he has the right to bring a lawsuit or not it simply is ok for receipt of power purposes that state court decision doesn't apply or that state who are sitting upon few and clear track doesn't have the right even if you get past bringing being able to bring their claim that's what happened they're trying to say mr moore just can't even forced a texas judge it just goes away magically and nobody can force the texas judge owners we think we've shown that receipt opponent has numerous problems of the five fact is a rescue part of they just can't meet them there is no final judgment which is a clear problem they're not the same parties there's no privity and even if there is re the most blatant case of forward shopping i've ever seen in two thousand and ten the planets of change the fault judgment allegedly too much service remains disputed against lambert contractors i'll see and the amount of approximately fifty seven in state courts and they've brought here and this they litigate these claims in state court oh for years until they received a judgment dismissing their claims adverse to their interests and which they filed a suit in the eastern district louisiana clear track little harder for me to follow in your reading that quickly can we just break these into three issues and take one of the time or so what's your position on diversity jurisdiction i believe the parties are residents of different states  interest perhaps interest of before you jump to a mountain controversy just can you point is to something in the record that shows that mr moore is a citizen of texas no you are so so under  authority would we persue operate on the assumption that he is position as he is but it does seem to be a little bit of a blurred area in law is the distinction between whether interest is integral in the judgment or it's in fillery or is it a chronological distinction that interest up until the judgment is included but no interest prose judgment well as it so perhaps i'm working backwards to some extent but the interpretation argued by opposing counsel would mean that every single judgment render that thanks to generous at some point would become subject to federal jurisdiction and that simply cannot be the case we do have i do have a case of the th circuit jurisdiction is not arise simply by virtue of the delay in payment which is what this would be there's no way this judgment has ever said there's no way this judgment could be calculated in two thousand and ten when rendered exists and has awarded in terms of that amount as part of the as part of the judgment when rendered such as an enemy read about that they make that calculation i think it might have brought the total up to about fifty eight thousand dollars at the time of the judgment was render the only way that they can get to the seventy five thousand dollars is if they accrue indefinite you know post judgment interest which can't be the rule of it it's just there's no support to florida for that i don't is in the judgment and i think it's mr annette that terminology to include the continuing after after judge i don't see where judge brown explained the case law  stepping out here that it was in results in the confusion and that in the term opposing counsel you use that interest including in the judgment well all interest including the judgment would be it took to create a distinction where you render that that language to have a meaning as well as not render in any judgment ultimately subject to federal court jurisdiction and that interest that is you know again accrued interest at the time at the  petition same issues alleged same parties alleged everything is exactly the same as alleged the trial court issued a cloud judgment as a final judgment is defined for  counsel the sack parties requested authorisation to substitute mr moore as plaintiff in that matter whether that was correct or in louisiana law is clear that whether that was correct or not he was granted that if you're ward if you consider interests as it accrues indefinitely into you get there's no other interpretation of law that would ever allow you to find a contra controversy th from the tech secretary of state show mr moore resides in texas i don't you ask for when you do something on the record there is adequate information in the record with regard to mr moore and his citizenship and where he lives with knew say she went through all the cases what i'm saying is she went through the cases cited by plaintiff or excuse me cited by defendant and showed why they were wrong what she said was she said with regard to  the state farm case state farm addresses insurance policy it was fifty thousand dollars total of insurance policy so there was an issue of interest and interest being your crude on that that was a deck and i think our poor judgment action the phoenix versus scott's case the case case with regard to that one the with issue of whether post judgment interest could be included wasn't even addressed but that kate case actually came  interest the amount of controversy in a suit to recover on the prior judgement is measured by the amount of the st judgment including the interest that came that is supported by the u s supreme court case of brown versus webster is the phoenix got sports case the reverse is rich and he's going to be you know when i looked at those but i don't have a fresh memory and you do so that's commendable but but maybe maybe then excepting your argument what's the limiting principle how do you avoid a litigant getting a judgement that submission really below significantly below and just waiting how do you answer that concern well your honor the distinction that is made by the courts is if it is something in the judgment if a judgment provides like this when it senses this judgment has five percent interest until it's pay if that's in the judgment that's what the courts have said that's included if this would have just said we're awarding if this is a s is there is no limiting principle that litigant with that type of judgment can wait until the day that the interest as is sufficient and then walk into federal court according to the case low yes your honor but what's more important here is that's not what's happened we've been trying to collect this case since the collective judgment since two thousand and ten we have taken all kind of efforts to collect this judgment we have gone to texas to get a judgment we have domesticated it louisiana we have dentical argument in federal court shortly before or almost immediately upon receiving an adverse ruling well your honor frankly no and he's confident other side counsels are representations that it's the same suit if not this was mr moore decided you know what look i don't the group a state court i think the state courts completely wrong and how it got then and so mr moore said where did he go defense and you know what let's go to federal court you have a claim in federal court let's go pursue it there because you know what i think the state court did get it wrong why give him another chance to get it wrong again mr morris is own separate and independent claim you know and that's what's brought here and whatever happened whether clear track was or wasn't an