question jurisdiction piece but i think there i think it's helpful to start this from the veda case obviously and in principle is this that the f a a allows federal courts to process disputes over which it already has jurisdiction and baden tells us how that happened number one and the f a a itself doesn't enlarge jurisdiction and number two what it says is that thirteen thirty one jurisdiction is triggered by the underlying dispute the underlying controversy so in our case for instance that would be the store communications act claim since that's a protocol claim that's what triggers the federal question jurisdiction and section four petition then those cases really down to this so called circuit split exists now as to whether we should look through this and find that we can look at complaint fun federal question you got two circuits on one side and who serves on the other side and i suppose that leaves us with a choice if that's exactly right that's a great great and the question is i've got an idea who you think which to you think of as well i've i've set forth my brief ye s so and that's the question right the question is exactly that so we know from vaden that you apply the look through approach to a section four petition so the question is well is there any relevant difference between a section for petition and then a section nine ten or eleven petition right in this case we have section ten and eleven but so the question is is there any difference and i would say no and for two reasons number one we know that the textual difference between it seems to me congress is the commerce clause to regulate arbitration maritime and com commerce clause and so it basically says that contracts that commerce rules and the gateway to arbitration which is the alternative to litigation from bain is you look at the under client dispute or getting a compelling arbitration and if it's a federal claim  has federal jurisdiction compel or you can go into state court if a party chooses to go directly to arbitration without getting a motion compelling or section four it seems to me you still governed by the fact the underlying dispute is a federal crime and there the question then is do you need to repeat that language under sections nine ten eleven and i would think once you get the gateway into arbitration coming out of arbitration para you'd be guided by the same principles and you wouldn't need to repeat it now i know the seventh circuit made a big deal about because it wasn't repeated in in the maritime cause and so that's where they got the authority to pass the arbitration act which is to regulate arbitration contracts and then they basically said in section or to get into arbitration you follow  nature of the underlying claim and that's what they'd say same's to me once you're in arbitration it's the alternative of litigation you don't come out of arbitration under section nine ten eleven go to state court it's  strange implications of the approaches taken by the seventh circuit and the third circuit and that's really going to have a state court a federal court it's number one it's going to force people to go into federal court rather reckon arbitration and one of the ideas was to recognize arbitration as an arbitration contract as an alternative to litigation and so the federal arbitration provides the two avenues but if you could have gone into federal court to  you want to vacate which is near impossible i think well i haven't seen very many vacated but that's another for another day well exactly and that is exactly agree that that is for another day on with respect to the implications of the approach adopted by the seventh circuit the third circuit in magruder in goldman that's exactly right there are a number of very strange incentives that are created by that but that rule which which you just explicated and the jurisdictional significance and i just don't see how that would be possible number one you know you want the f a a to have a unitary approach which he talks about i think that's correct and number two why would the adjudication of the federal claim itself why would that somehow deprive the court of federal question jurisdiction and i think goldman's analysis of that is essentially goldman says well by the time you get to books and debate kadir motion firm or modify what you're really jurisdiction and they were authorized to do that and that's so congress did two things created the arbitration act procedurally regulating all contracts that affect commerce or maritime section or at least provides for the underlying planed determines the nature of the case whether it's a federal case or state case and the only question left question left open is because the same language and force not in nine ten eleven arbitrator's procedure they claim is based on and this case is based on a federal statute that's exactly right enough i'm going to say but the goldman analysis which i think the third circuit they talk about procedure but the same objection can be made to question what should we do with this case do we just resolve it here in terminal a do we send it back to the have to go yeah exactly so so that's the question right i mean i think at least we're on board with course right right another question is what do you with a case do you resolve it now or do you remained it and it would be quite unusual for this court to go ahead and jump on a twenty six argument at this point in this case for a couple  reasons number one this is a one thousand nine hundred fifteen easy dismissal and those can't be with prejudice and this one was so that part that very minimum can't be affirmed number two you know they claim that that unfairness now their argument of course is well there's not enough twamley level detail here and my rejoinder is if that's an argument they want to make they can certainly do that on remand i mean if but by embodying the court to do that now what they're doing is that would deprive the appellant here of the ability to amend fission to correct whatever deficiencies they see so we would say number one we do state a claim for probably six purposes again this is a pro se petition jane if they dismiss so if if once the motion is mrs is filed there's an assessment of yes we need to be amendment to deal with that then that's how that would play out and again this is all stuff that ordinarily in every case would happen in the district court and i reading your briefing was here you know seeing you don't make an argument about this photo of course the jurisdiction matter you go straight to the question what should happen even if there is does that indicate you are going to present an independent counsel budget of the law yeah i would argue no the other side of that case i don't see a need to do it here but i'm just saying that has happened but given the fact that if you don't you're not going to be arguing that point  arbitrator was honest and would bias if it were demonstrably for proved he had grounds for vacation evident partiality would be you're around for a vacation under the i mean whatever the reason that the wrong with that in other words at this point we accept that allegation were you when you don't accept the legal conclusions at this point at this stage in the proceedings and he did color about it and with some more factual allegations and even taking those factual allegations the manner in which he described evident partiality is true that would be insufficient your or your argument is that foxy set forth doesn't satisfy any of the standards of nine and ten i mean ten eleven correct the manner in which he pled this claim he actually had a fairly detailed description of why he felt that the arbitrator with biased yeah even accepting all of that is true that would still be insufficient and the reason is he had other grounds that he alleged just bias or was there were a couple  others i think the first the first one of the ball with the pleading as i read it was that he was essentially deprived of a fundamentally fair hearing that he was described deprived of discovery and he was deprived of an opportunity to present evidence that a world hearing and even accepting that is true that would be insufficient federal courts as you know it had a very high standard for setting aside an arbitration of arbitration award and then only set aside it for those procedural reasons like he's alleged in the proceeding with fundamentally unfair and this case is question of futility is something that this court can consider at this point and while in the ordinary case it's true that the litigant would be given a leave to amend this is a very different case where we've to amend would be futile and absolutely leave to amend is not a matter of right and in this particular situation so because it would utilize calling the senate back to who delish job and then they you need to come back here you come back i don't think well i don't think that's necessarily the most clean way to do it if you have as you do in this case essentially a record because this case didn't come to this court on appeal of a dismissal of a complaint at the outset of a proceeding it emerges on the appeal of a dismissal of vacate an arbitration award and there was a full arbitration proceeding and that the materials from that arbitration proceeding are attached at the tip so this court has before it essentially what the district court would have before it in making that determination and so then work we usually reviewed the district court as a matter of law trauma whether it was wrecked but somebody has to make that judgment and while we could make that judgment that doesn't mean it's our work the motion is addressed in the district court dismissed and then there are the possibilities of amendment and well you understand all that of course absolutely and i do understand that and i do think it's important just to make the point as to why this case even though it would ordinarily be the district court's work in the first instance why this is a case where the district the this court can can and should affirm without remained and in a lot of ways it represents a perfect don't mind a memory on the right i've read they actually have an arbitration hearing the act here he did not they resolved it on documents only and reviewing the record it appears that the documents only proceeding was elected by agreement of the parties in fact kind of taking a different position in his petition to vacate it's pretty clear from the briefing below that he mr moore participated in a scheduling essentially yes and that he wasn't didn't receive a fair procedure both of which are he wanted discovery to he wanted discovery that's right and all of those things that i just said all of the reasons why the arbitrator behaved appropriately and there's no reason that  high standard or apparent in the record for this court now he attached essentially the entire arbitration file so this court could review that and however many amendments he would possibly make it can't change the facts which are before this court from italy guys as you know he says well i don't like the tie ins and you're not going to win and then they finish off on the paper and he gives that dismisses the award if those were the facts know there is no such claim because in fact mr moore submitted an affidavit in connection with this proceedings describing that scheduling conference in which he acknowledges that he essentially released that information to the georgia state police department inappropriately so that's correct there's really no need in this instance for now that it's the position of the federal courts to second guess the arbitrators procedure but in this instance we agree with you there's no need for any kind of a hearing so those are his bases and we know from the record that we have that there is no way that amended amendment purity in those problems it simply doesn't make sense to remain in this case for the district court to consider it in the first instance or only to have us make essentially the same arguments that we're making here and to have those probably accepted and then to come back up here on a few of them with the same parties the same arguments and for all practical purposes the same record so  underlying case is a federal case it is simply in congress to have that federal an arbitration of that federal or in any kind of post arbitration for seeding from that federal  your friend on the other side yes those are jurisdiction under either hook and in any event correct and the reason we disagree with my friend on the other side is that it's clear in this case for whatever reason appellate more head claim of seventy four thousand nine hundred ninety nine dollars so any way you slice that that's going to be less than the amount of controversy and now there's a circuit split on that question that there would be no diversity jurisdiction for that reason but we're all on the same age as to federal question  case we were never served in the district court we knew of the underlying arbitration obviously we first learned of the federal proceedings and we received notification that counsel had been appointed in this case had been calendared for oral argument at which jurisdiction we agree with the other side so i don't think we equivocate in our briefs at all it's just kind of the lengthy procedural off certain of the proceedings in this court but now that we're here the question is just what should we do is it worth sending it back or is it position to be and at the end you know haven't gotten that point to continue to press this business about not going back in this area here it's almost like wow are you about to win a big hump in this case that you maybe maybe your to just take what you have it can be happy with it because you keep pressed it is they can break these eggs out have become a card we're not getting the other side of this argument here as to whether this is a case where for the question should not be a look through not because they want it in state court or whatever but because the law is such that i understand your question judge when and i do agree it's a bit of a unique position we do think it's an exceptional case a petition so in our in our brief because there is a sort of split on the demand approach versus the board approach but when you look at the cases if you look at the the remained and reopen cases  think found a case in which a request was made to remain and reopen for an amount that is more than seventy five thousand dollars i have not found a case where the court says the amount kafir is not met now so yeah he  and i think he was aiming at the arbitration rules because they said if you played under seventy five thousand you get treated as a with a different procedural requirement and he did that seventy four ninety nine not and then later he said seventy five thousand but that's still wouldn't do it because it has to exceed seventy five thousand and  i don't see anywhere where he alleged that exceeds any five thousand might be wrong on that and it really depends on i mean this is across a petition it's not incredibly clear right but argument is that you could generously read appendix thirty one and thirty two is where he makes his damages demands and he does say i want seventy five thousand one hundred with respect to my arbitration and then he has you know three hundred thousand and two be that would be just one generation to the or the arbitration award if it were the most that could have been granted would have been seventy five thousand i think in his initial it is initial demand yes all the documents there the only place he went over is in the lawsuit seeking to vacate that's right but that's a that's a motion under section mine it's not a lawsuit it's the procedural and horsemen of  it has to be remanded just i mean with respect to the futility argument the futility of amendment i mean at this point i'm limited by the appellate record i mean i can't go out and tell you hey we could go amend to add additional facts because i'm limited to what's in the