with the strong impression that this was a dismissal on colorado river ground it wasn't dismissed it was a stay of proceedings in the district court without prejudice and the court essentially help door open for you to come back after the state courts are finished with us which leads me to question our appellate jurisdiction  it's very hard even looking at moses cone for me to see this as of anything remotely resembling a final judgment the district court has said come on back if there's if there's more and so i force you to do it on the fly then but i'll tell you that that's a real concern of mine and our believe that jurisdiction was also discuss and sometimes colorado river matters conclude in a more definitive way i guess i'll say this one doesn't seem to be one of those times was the case but on the other hand in the colorado river case itself the court didn't follow that path and there are cases where it's appropriate for in the interest of as they say wise judicial trade to allow a state court present to go on a lot of your complaint was literally cut and paste from what was going on in the state court so it's hard for me to see in this picture an abus one way of looking at this case appears to be your effort to get a federal court to geometer the quality of proceedings going on in a state court to monitor what the lawyers are doing and make sure the lawyers are not misrepresenting things to make sure that the right judge is there which sound to me like quintessentially matters for the state court to do for itself is that wrong well i think it's a that despite our let's put it this way if i don't i'm a practitioner and i have a note that's attached to a complaint foreclosure complaint and it's made payable to wells fargo and it's not is attached to the complaint is not endorse that means that i say i wish as a practitioner should should be able to see your original now if if i try to get your original from the plaintiffs and they produce it well then i guess that's fine there's really no harm done but if the plaintiffs states that x y z has the original x rays he doesn't have the original and now i have to go through a lot more steps to try to get a hold of the original and see if your original actually actually is indoors and the plant does have standing well then i believe that the fact that they stated x y z had possession when x y z didn't have possession and caused can you tell us a little bit more about what's happening with the bankruptcy proceedings at this point and why in your view they don't affect this case my understanding right now is that she which gives rise to me because i wasn't handling it  you know we're to where if we were trying to determine who the holder is or you know who the proper plaintiff is we look to the to the u c c or do we look to who in service agreement because normally we would look to the u c c and we should only have to look to the u c c because that that i realize that it's possible that what they told me back in two thousand and fifteen was not true now what i did was i should discovery and i asked u s bank or the attorney  represent us bank could i see the original and and she stated that she did not have it in her possession at that time and then she also suggested to the plane service and agreement this time i asked her to pull in service an agreement and when i saw that th custodian was lost cargo i had to go through wells fargo to get a copy of the original to do my due diligence as a practitioner now i don't  why did they why did they state in the affidavit that it wasn't in possession of wells fargo i don't know all but it caused a lot more work for me that if it had and now we're going to just say lo and behold old well you know no harm done i mean if if if you don't value your time then then you know then maybe there's been no harm done but when i'm trying to do my job for my client and i and i'm relying on an affidavit that says that the u s bank isn't possession i should be allowed to just do a notice  that it was appealed because the object of the stay was to require all or an essential part of the federal suit to be litigated in a federal state for our own that's note for note eleven ninety nine percent of the federal compare so your position would be that there is at least practical finale even though the district court chose to use a stay and chose to say you can come back i think that's right your honor and we look at other cases like the three case in which we nd our brief and the seven circuit where the court didn't really inquire into the jurisdictional issues but there were clearly state or federal issues to be decided after the state court rules so i think that's say well we're talking about misrepresentations in the federal case but the mistress presentations are all statements in the state court action about standing so  if the state court finds that us standing the federal claims will be resolved if the case courts as they do not have standing that will also largely resolve the record feldman it's not a record feldman issue it's a preclusion issue here so we have the substantial insane parties substantial likelihood that the state of our state  action is going to resolve the federal claims and all the discretionary factors the court did what it was supposed to do it went through all ten of the factors this court has identified it did it with an matter of state law in state proceeding is whether that's enough to give them stay in the action and as your honor said if there are issues involving how one thing struck or that someone was acting