any more than than it is just because what usually the rule has three factors one is the chronological similarity parties and similarity of issues why is it necessary even to consider the relation bad when and are all fifteen is complicated when you have the very curries in front of you so this would seem to introduce new levels of complexity difficult for a district court could make a decision on relation your address and and i suppose that the court could take the substance of what the relation back doctrine  limited subset of issues against only delta and after we as the ones in the district court and we brought this to the judicial panel i'm also district ition we and if the way that what weighs in that argument sufficient to say that the relation bat doctrine i mean the st file doctrine shouldn't apply here because your honor the substance of the overlap of the cases i parties in york the plaintiffs in your case had dealt with best buy there was one other one i think the reality alluded to in the complaint in your allegation in the as you tell the story in your complaint but the plaintiffs when their information was breached we're talking about best buy and then you know when you look at your complaint it doesn't bring in all this preemption business that you have to deal with in the piqua and the other case so i you know for me when i look at this the two the complaints to me substantively look different there are they may have arisen from the same data breach situation but they are they are in my sense in mind when i looked at this and looked at the peak of complaint and your complaint they strike me it strikes me though that to the extent in your case that there is even any allegation regarding delta and the problems with preemption and whatnot in the early deregulation act is that york is that to the extent there is any retailers where there's no problem with the airline deregulation act would be perfectly you know he could go forward you don't have you don't have those you don't have that preemption issue correct as we don't have the issue i've course would not looked and she dismissed this case when she said that the st file doctrine apply she dismissed the case with prejudice when she decided that it couldn't be transferred  she initially orders that it was going to be dismissed then when she signed the order it was a dismissal with prejudice which just doesn't make sense it seems like in our case law even if you apply the st file doctrine here and she determined correctly nobody seems to quibble with is that couldn't be transferred to l a the central district because the venue problems then the remedy the proper remedy should have been she just should have stayed because she'd been alerted she'd been informed is i couldn't i could not find it this discussion that we just heads probably supports the notion that we're dealing with two cases that have some similarities between them when i look at the complaint they have a general negligence claim which is similar on some different parties different state statute claims in both lawsuits different ones not the same ones i'm curious for your response to this question in this context if one case has a threshold as positive as you like preemption does that trump doesn't automatically preclude the application of the  morning i'll jump right in and i'll just respond to the questions that were ted asked i'm do it in reverse order beginning a little response to the question because i think it's important overlapping issues that's exactly what judge prevented here and she had the history of the case where she knew this was a delta case she knew that even after amendment your honor that the order cletus continued to have the delta customers within their class definition that's important they could have specifically excluded the delta customers from their class definition after they knew the central district  if we were to agree with you that the st file darkon should apply here seems like you got more out of judge freeman than you should have she dismissed the case without prejudice your what's the basis for that you're mean correct it's a challenge and so if you were to ask me what should happen here i do believe she did not abuse her discretion in what she did but is the best thing for all parties to go back her go back and give her that never remember the case i can find it for you and we can have a good conversation because these and it made both mr mcgee and i play in a very small sandbox and both of us i think welcome the intellectual dialogue here because it matters to both of our clients is a very very good question and we've been strategizing about that at a time since the plaintiffs filed their reply disagreeing with my proposition in my client's says that order plaintiffs and still be absent class members in the peak and frankly the mcgarry class classes that are currently ending before this very panel on the th circuit if they do actually still have claims to the extent they can get around claim preclusion now we don't know those are outstanding issues because the peak mcgarry cases are still pending right if this court says you know the central district got it wrong please go back in remember those claims  central district what happens to the four plaintiffs so that's a very good with a dismissal with prejudice i mean if there's no case so that's a very good question and i can't answer it  to apply the proper remedy was just simply to enter a stay so let it ride and see what happens on appeal in those other cases you're correct with with i'll begin with order which he had dismissed without prejudice you know i don't know but it's certainly a possibility and i want to be honest we could send it back and give her a chance to explain couldn't we that would be acceptable to right so the judge in the central district has already heard this case for time right because not only does he but he also has made it very so he has a good understanding of the facts a good understanding of the case and so ar this court needs to decide that is it ok to be decided it needs to be decided you know at a later date and if there is any case to be decided certainly the federal district is in a better position ok well we complete record before the judicial analog i just repeated ation where they said in essence they have no interest in pursuing twenty four seventh's so again i go back to whether the court should engage in arguments this morning interesting questions and the matter is emitted at this time and that ends our session for today thank you very much