this quote has no jurisdiction and is not a thing that we can do about that so i suggest the problem practicing your rhetorical skills you get to the question of whether or not the the bankruptcy rules to apply the district court must express the invoke them and that never happened here want why they're stuck because supposed to litigate comes into the federal court and the district court never mentions the rosenberg from the th circuit they all expressly recognize that it is a district court's discretion whether to apply either the federal rules of civil procedure were the bankruptcy rules  to give to the to the district court discretion to pick and choose which set of rules to apply well that i don't think there's an explicit grant one way or the other your honor there is no specific grant that says in district court council you know i think there can be a restraint made the basic point a debt is not put in terms of discretion but  is put in nice sturm so if it is a core proceeding it's perfectly obvious to everybody that the bankruptcy rules apply if however it is are arguably a related proceeding it is not perfectly obvious and this court has never addressed the question of whether what the tests are or for whether it is some a related proceeding or not but inherent in all of this even if it is a related proceeding is a notion of fair notice to the parties as to which set of rules are being applied i understand your best argument to be that no one ever said to the district court here because this is a related proceeding the bankruptcy rules apply and indeed all of the briefing to the district court up to the point of your motion referred to the rules of civil procedure and every citation from the bankruptcy court referred to the us so it may be perfectly fine once the issue has been timely raised to say the district court maybe does not have the discretion but that this amendment to the bankruptcy rules shortening the time and furthermore the district court here didn't rule on that you're asking the court of appeals for the very st time to address the question whether such an argument has any purchase or not i don't know but that i thought was the argument that you were essentially making yes the that's exactly the argument there is there was never a single reference by the painting of any of the bankruptcy rules the parties did not understand this proceeding to be governed by the bankruptcy rules and it was only after the merchant from consideration was filed that the for the unwary to keep in sight unseen without any notice to either parties or by the district court and in the absence of any explicit authority requiring the distant court to apply those rules and there is no he pointed to a bankruptcy rule i'm sorry i see what you're saying no i don't think that there's any of them is any difference between the two other than the application of this certain time period for the russians and this issue of course never came up in the district court because the only effect of this there forms relates to appellate jurisdiction not a problem with which the distributors concerned well well well we don't know what the district says that the bankruptcy rules apply to a claim or cause of action removed to a district court or state court and govern proceed the after removal i would also point the court's attention to the celtics case which was cited in our brief proposed revised nd amended complaint the district court did not abuse its discretion by summarily rejecting plaintiffs post judgment reconsideration or quest host motion to a man is not subject to liberal amendment treatment described as extraordinary plaintiffs did not even attempt to demonstrate rule fifty nine dollars extraordinary basis on which the district court could set aside the judgment dismissing canadian pacific railway company instead post judgment motion the district court acted well within its discretion to deny it i'd like to divide my time into three areas st a very brief truncated statement of relevant underlying background nd jurisdictional problems with this appeal in the underlying motion to dismiss order the cases were initially filed in illinois in texas state courts but then removed and ultimately transferred to the district of maine where the railways ba once in maine a number of common motions were filed in one case roig and were greed and deemed a clickable to the broader collection of cases for motions across all cases were briefed and argued to those motions were reach the district court granted canadian pacific railway companies motion to dismiss on three separate groans not reaching a th despite this order being listed in the notice of appeal that orders not challenge here in any fashion any argument about the propriety of that order is waive amendment asserted on her allegations in additional parties that motion to men was denied is futile despite being listed again in the notice of appeal that order is also not challenged here in any fashion judgement  followed reconsideration twenty eight days later seeking to vacate the judgment under rule fifty nine and then seeking leave to file what was called a proposed revised nd amended complaint which was appended to the rule fifty nine motion explains the fact that they were they wrote wait the district court never commented on that the district court simply thought that they didn't meet the ecb all plausibility standard as to a common enterprise but i meant interested in what your response is to their assertion they really could not have known about the i think it's the sewell line that they're now focused on until they had gone through a lot of discovery and until they filed their motion sure i understand your question judge lynch i think i can point you to some places in the record books minutes from getting out of first for this to be really new evidence it has to be previously unavailable it's going to be subject to a rule fifty nine motion it wasn't what they actually knew or understood probably is not relevant because there's things in the record that demonstrate they did know about suing railroad company well before judgment was entered and i point the court to a couple things st in the host judgment reconsideration motion the one where they attached in appende be revised nd minute complaint it was supported by a declaration now the declaration didn't get into reasons about why or why not this evidence about a company was previously available that was the burden they should have done it but even even even stronger is the fact that they handed publicly filed documents with the f c c from two thousand and fifteen probably over a year and a half before judgment to support the reconsideration motion i'd also point the in the united states in this instance the us midwest so i believe they did no i don't think this was anything hidden railroad company is a very very well known company it's a u of the of the district court the district court expressly based its order of denial on the ground the futility that's the way and here the plaintiffs had the evidence available to them that would have evidently cured the futility problem which was in the district court's view that the complaint didn't include a specific allegation that suit drove the train the problem is that before they had a chance to do that i don't judgment kicked in and they were forced to pursue the only pathway they had available to them which was a rule fifty nine motion for reconsideration what canadian pacific that and i think this is really the kind of nub of the dispute the only way a party can succeed in a rule fifty nine motion for reconsideration is to establish exacting standard of either manifest country that because because of the finality interests when it comes to curing a pretty judgment defect identified by a district court different than the kind of the one motion you'd normally see that would require new evidence or manifest could have cured it pre judgment had you been more diligent and pursuing the interim and you didn't and even if the district court acted a little too promptly and entering judgment it doesn't much matter here because the district court was correct at that point  and it's ruling on futility and the fact that you're doing at judgment doesn't your entitled to the benefit of the create judgment ru fifteen standard yes so let me start from the beginning and try to get to the end of that question judge lynch the st question part of that question was did we know about two thousand and fifteen did you know could you have known no in the answer is no and here's by what what happened in this case is that canadian pacific identified itself as the driver of the training from north dakota through the united states that happened in the that it was canadian pacific who drove the train i might add also that it was the bankruptcy trustee who pled the same thing based on the same representation and it was only after the plaintiffs filed their motion for the st prejudgment motion for imagine that that that canadian pacific actually identified sue mind as the entity responsible for driving the train so it is not the case at all that we could have known or did know that it was a line that wasn't sponsible for the train now to get to the nd question the district court the th as as not not for as judge so you noted undue delay or prejudice to the defendant when prevented denied prejudgment the plaintiff's motion for me to a just this is what the district court said that the proposed nd amended complaint is the prejudgment complete does not allege that suit operated the train before it crossed the us canadian border that is the only only allegation that the pla here what's your response i think that's i think that's right but the only reason that there be a notice of appeal would be to challenge the merits of the futility decision the judge may be reached and that isn't what the and and the that the revised cause of action they say is unrelated to maine there would be no jurisdiction properly remaining and but of course just to remind the panel this case did not start in maine this these cases are wrongful death case that started in state court in illinois and soon lined its corporate offices in headquarters are in illinois the key decision making about this train occurred in illinois and so in our view one of these cases are reminded and sent back where they belong which is state court there will be no service of process or personal terms diction issue thank you thank you thank you all that concludes arguments for today the session of the honorable united states court of appeals is no recess until the next session of the court god save the united states of america and this honorable court counsel you may disconnect from the meeting