the court my name is steve williams representing leo in u s films while there are a number of reasons why the district court's order dismissing leo's case should be reversed and the time that i have available today i'm going to focus my comments concluded that the contractual liability limitation contained in the go daddy terms of service agreement created a legal certainty that leo did not meet the requisite seventy five thousand dollars threshold to establish subject matter jurisdiction the issue of of looking at subject matter jurisdiction in the mountain controversy has been well established in this just in the circuit kind of god's fault counsel is me good lord what if you would have stepped up podium and started talking about geographic explorers a case which seems to be that on point one of the main issues are not the main issue in this case a case which neither of you cited to the district court or even though it was on our books at the time you argued this case you're absolutely right your honor and i apologize geographic is this rule makes sense just because of the then it might have a valid defense that will reduce recovery the below the jurisdictional amount does not mean the defendant will ultimately prevail on that further if a district court had to have valuate every possible defense th could reduce recovery below the jurisdictional mail the district court would essentially have to decide the merits of the case before it could determine if it had subject matter jurisdiction and this is building on the prior jurors crews from the sport including the augustine   your honor i wish i had a good explanation for that in this case during the briefing that we we were looking at more specifically the issue of the injunction and other should have followed up augustine with a reference to geographic expedition and i wish that we had we didn't and i take responsibility for that shortcoming is there any other issue before us other than the basis upon which judge reyes concluded that you couldn't mean to men of all financial requirements of there were diversity jurisdiction to get in the door of the we played in our complaint it paragraph we don't so you don't even need to argue about that i'm looking at judge reyes was opinion and he starts out by saying there's only one way that i can dismiss this case at this point my client should not be faulted for for my failure to bring forward to the court's attention the geographic case well in fairness in fairness the district court and his clerks didn't find the case either so the plaintiff to satisfy the amount of controversy obviously when you look at geographic expedition what the court found in your graphic expedition is if the court has to build into the merits of the case then it is not a virtual i possibility you have not by definition met legal certainty in this case we did establish that there that there was a sufficient amount of controversy in excess of seventy five thousand there is a there is a requirement to get into the merits that means it's not a legal certainty the other reason that i would focus on or why the court erred in this case is the court failed to take into consideration the value  apple dealers apple growers were likely to lose accounts likely to lose business and that loss of future profit was more than sufficient to satisfy to show that the value of the injunction means up there satisfy the amount of controversy  the value clearly exceeded the seventy five thousand dollars threshold these two these two issues by themselves more than support the reversal of the district well again i don't want to reread what i read to your opponent but it seems to me crystal clear judge radio says that's how i get to legal certainty is the damage limitation which legally certain that the amount in controversy in less than seventy five thousand dollars therefore the court dismissed in this case and does not reach go daddy's alterman arguments under f r c p tw sex or leo's request to prove a limb of their early enjoy go daddy for a month holding access to the domain so the case rises or falls on the district court's conclusion wishes to around for judge areas to consider geographic expedition we certainly would not object to that and we believe that upon a consideration of geographic expedition that judge reyes will reach the correct conclusion that he is not able to delve into the merits of the defense to our to the to the contract claim the defense being limitation of liability provision i believe that he will conclude that this case our case is very similar to geographic issue jurisdiction was the defendant the other side raised a a defense of the limitation viability a challenge was made to that and in order to determine that challenge that's what in order for there to be legal certainty it must be virtually impossible for the for the plaintiff to satisfy a mountain controversy one geographic expedition teaches us is if there is a contest if there is a challenge to the defense such that the court has to delve into the merits of that offense then it is not virtually impossible there is no there is no legal certainty and bad is the case here so we the so while we believe that the court could certainly reverse on any of the other number any other issues raised in our brief if the court wishes to send this case back to judge reyes all just to determine the issue of geographic expedition we're fine because we believe that he will reach the correct result and that is that the your honors if there are no other questions i will wrap up simply by saying again we believe there are a number of reasons why the order they order from below should be reversed certainly the failure the misapplication of  with respect to legal certainty absolutely present a reason for reversing and summing in fact for further consideration the fact that the court did not consider the value of injunctive relief as well as the other issues raised in our brief each