kaffir jurisdiction in federal court there's no dispute that those are satisfied the objections the you have are based upon the thirty day entry rang and the second or successive grokked correct i did not argue the amount of controversy i argued miraculous from the class certification order that came out of the santa barbara sapir your court that this was the first time that they ever could have ascertained that the amount in controversy was over five million well no the question under ra is whether they could have ascertained the question is whether what you gave them gave them the first given that information mean ross says if they can by their own independent investigation determine that it's for movable they don't have to remove until you've done something to trigger either under one or two branches understood and so that that is what many of the cases talk about is whether or not they have to actually do any of the calculations if they ever have to run them the numbers and the courts seem to be clear that they don't necessarily have to run the numbers but what happens in a situation where they actually do run the numbers and what is the impact of that particular inquiry on the success of removal and i think it's important to address this issue because the way that cox is dealing with it in the way the district court is is handling suggested that it is immaterial that there was nothing of importance there but if i present to any court and i say that it is  if i later come back i'm bound by my statement that it's a i can't suddenly come back and say you know what i just learned yesterday it was a even though three years ago i had told you that it was a and so correct and the importance of this order is that we get a picture of what the district court was really doing at the time it was reviewing this this issue for the first time what it found what it looked at and what it ultimately concluded the district court did not suggest when defendant came in and said that this case had a value of twenty five million that that was proposed douras that it was based on assumptions or unreliable what it did was said ok you make statements that these people work four days a week you make statements that these people work ten hours a day you make statement that these people work fifty weeks a year but you didn't bother to put a declaration in there to that effect and if you look at your twenty nine at fourteen defendants also provide no evidence for the sumption that class members work for shifts per week or fifty weeks per year if you look at e r thirty they'd they address the issue about ten hours of work day now why is that important because those are vital vital components of the calculation now are they distancing themselves from them in the second removal no this time is that all you know what we've got to put that in a declaration so now when you have and will compare the two declarations if you start with with  r thirty four which is the susan irwin declaration and that's important because she talks about what she did this idea that you don't have to do the calculations i understand is out there the with based on the fact that there weren't declaration saying that you had for four week work week four day work weeks ten hour days and fifty hour work weeks or fifty weeks worked in the year with you look at e r sixty eight that's hugo henshaws declaration there he is where he puts those things into the declaration that was lacking the first time when when they came up for example with twenty four million in meal and rest breaks that continued to be part of the complaint that have never left the complaint this is how they dealt with it they said ok we  estimate one violation per day of meal and rest if you look at the district court's ruling on the first remand the district court doesn't say that's unreasonable in fact if you look at it at their submission and i think it's b r to forty nine their briefs you know they even cite to a case that says the district court permitted the defendants to assume one missed rest break and one missed meal period per employee per day you know that's coleman estis express lines c f's up second eleven forty one at eleven forty nine to fifty so when it here's my problem with this case and it's a problem that really is not so much just with this case it's a problem with how this triggering stuff and i was fairly open about it as that when i wrote ross  there is a possibility here for gamesmanship on both sides you want you don't want to be here he doesn't want to be there and you have it in your power to say ok i'm going to give you thirty days to make your move you could have made it very pla how much money was a stake and then he would have had thirty days you chose not to make it very plain you chose to make it well you could have figured it out and now you're trying to say oh well i gave you enough that you really would try trying to do it he said i didn't  enough i have to say i'm not very sympathetic to either side because it's just gamesmanship on both sides understood and i appreciate what you're saying and i i can't say that that i necessarily disagree given what the side's ultimate goal is until let's start from there and the question that i have is whether the company represented to the district court the first time that it knew that the figures were what they say they discovered i understand that they didn't support it with affidavits and therefore the district court properly said well you haven't proven that sufficiently but did they represent either in the papers that they submitted to the district court or in the statement thing made to the district court did they represent that they did know and if so they represented that they actually knew what the amount was to the district court the first time and that the district court said well you may have said this but you haven't proven  in any of the removals that i've seen they'd generally use estimates extrapolations so if you're asking me did they say to the penny it is this amount no did they set forth the in the calculations and i think they did it you are forty three which is the first of the series of calculations and they talk about the meal period i say based upon you know the field technician you're reading from birth notice every move of your forty three got it based on the field technicians approximate average hourly rate twenty five dollars and the approximate number of shifts they work during the relevant time period they typically work for shifts per week the approximate potential exposure for just plaintiffs mewling rest claims is approximately twenty four million in total and then they break down the numbers twenty five that's from the declaration of irwin which is it your thirty four then they have four fo is the four days a week that they forgot to put the declaration in that they then put in in your sixty eight the second time around with engel henshaw so they knew that that's something they knew they simply just didn't put it in the declaration next numbers two hundred which is fifty weeks times four years again that's another number they knew and you'll see it in e r sixty nine i believe and sheil talking again about working fifty weeks a year but again the first time around they didn't put it in a declaration so they knew that to the next number six hundred six hundred is the number of class members that is from susan irwin's death aeration are thirty four where she says she went through the specific records and i want to read for her because i know i'm running out of time but then you look at you know times two times two is the violations of meal and rest breaks and then if you go back to the e r two forty nine it talks about the coleman asked this case that i mentioned that says it is reasonable to assume one meal or rest break violation per per payday but if you look at susan irwin and this is why i think this is really telling i have personal knowledge of the fact she says i work for cox communication i have access to the company's payroll systems and can generate reports now in november two thousand and twelve i reviewed company payroll records to determine the number of nonexempt employees who worked in california as field technicians are similarly title positions and i understand you can read you'll be able to read this but you know she in paragraph three when she's talking generally she says there were over six hundred class members in paragraph four she says i also understand that some claims are only three years and what does she do then so i conducted the same exercise for a shorter period of time and found out they were not over six hundred but approximately six hundred she then went in excess i also reviewed company payroll records for the over six hundred identified and eventually to determine how many of them separated their employment with the company and their dates separation based on my review there were one hundred and thirty eight individuals this was all known to them and had they did a declaration that judged that there's carty found lacking the result may have been different but what they really want is hey they know because it's the basic underlying premises you've got to put them on notice in the things rather than what they know now what might get you there is the things that they have done it and you know it can you then come back later and say well you know we didn't have to make a calculation if you tell the court we know what it is and within thirty days then at least within thirty days after that you don't come back and say well we're missing affidavits but can you come back and represent to the court well we knew it we did it but we didn't have to and we told you we did it and now we want to answer your question in this if you actually did set forth some basis for judicial stoppel there's some argument that i could say something i think that could force an acquittal basis bar me later on from saying something completely the said let's assume that this is a mule period case and let's just assume that the complaint doesn't say anything about how often the meal period violations occurred or what was the reason for the meal period violations the flaw here has nothing to with neil periods and has to do with the a subset of the original class members can participate in a program called home start where they're allowed to bring their truck  i would kill for a commute time like that and most people are going to kill for a commute time like that but let's take that that is the commute time for the members of the class and then you multiply that out by the numbers that you asserted the previous time in terms of how many people we have  get over five million is that correct well by that that would be correct but you know that's a different class that's not this is people a subset it's not for hindsight i know it's a different class but the question is are you stuck with the numbers you represented to be in the first time around when those numbers if plugged into a fifteen minute commute time yield more than five million bucks that's the question answer is no for two reasons reason number one the sophistic for about all cable  there there was allegations that the flaw that the the error by the company was some kind of misrepresentation or not following some kind of regulation that allowed the plaintiffs to recover as damages the value of  representative as the average number i mean that's what let's assume you're right let's assume that fifteen minutes on the low side and the actual average was was thirty we used by the way fifteen minutes as an assumption to get to the seven million dollars so we didn't they were concerned supposedly about judicial hellholes in illinois and they they set up a certain procedures of what you have to follow to be able to remove we have followed those procedures for as your honor in iraq and you're the author of rauf and fourteen forty six he sets what specific criteria you follow those prince harry and there was no questions before i want to address this in case it's on your minds about successive removals we have a basis for successive removal there was at a i will be very brief on the successor removal standard far as i understand change the law but then the question is why didn't didn't remove within thirty days and also would it have made a difference because you still have the admissibility problem with the no evidence of the four the ten and the fifty now with respect to the issue the numbers were run the math that you talk about the to get to this nine million what are they taking they're taking the four four days a week they're taking the ten ten hours a day they're taking the fifty hours a week all of the stuff that they put in their papers the first time around think you just you're