if you please the court jeffrey h greenberg for the palace in this case michael and grace weiss track this to why strike is present in the courtroom blue blazer your the central issue in this case as whether or not the district court judge could disregard the allegations of the verified complaints and  i like to say there's no way to that question your honor very much but i would be inclined to say that we're supposed to file an opposition to the motion of the swiss under the state first of all i'm getting ready on friday to present evidence on a felony injunction natter on a complaint that alleges that there was a contract my client's consulting for this public company he's been given one hundred fifty thousand shares of stock in warren street another hundred  that when it got removed we didn't have anything challenging because i was i told them i told the motion because i wanted to respond to it out of the normal system of countering that taciturn town docket the federal court right well that's correct you're on if you look at the record and you see that what happens is for someone on reason and probably just a general administrative looking at the caseload of the judge issued the notice that the case had been removed yes sure what they're not included in the papers the notice to dismiss which had been filed in the state court so that wa received the notice of removal which had the motion to dismiss appendant now there is some jurisdiction there is some jurisprudence that pending motions in the state court remain pending when the case is removed to a federal court correct why didn't you take up your response to that motion to dismiss when you received the motion papers a part of the removal papers your honor it then carried over and that's the part i mean maybe it didn't maybe it didn't but how does anybody know the answer to that question i agree your honor there's nothing concrete that says that there was a specific answer you but i district court judge and you're going to go over where you are in the case and unfortunately of course there's no good good reason for the case getting basically put aside for a while and not getting noticed but are concerned i mean if you look at the case law regarding rule twelve there's a very strong passing of not dismissing claims because of a problem with the complaint considering and we asked here to consider it a response i didn't say we characterized it maybe that's an adjective but i asked him to consider it a response and in reality in real life its sole purpose of being filed the day before the hearing i mean junction was to respond to the allegation that the plane of could not recover because he didn't have a license so under the facts of this case and under the circumstances of this case i think you should find that the truck would abused its discretion in granting the motion to dismiss thank you very much presumably the district court did not read quite what it was or not there's a couple answers to that the first is that i'm not so sure it wasn't read there's nothing in the file that says it wasn't read and in fact the last order of judge perry was that even if i considered your motion to reconsider i still would grant the motion to dismiss which to need presume is that he must have read or looked at everything before his final order and final understanding and his order the motion for  can consider the fact that there was a noticed hearing it didn't happen which certain six suggested that the whole thing wasn't something being carried over i don't know that i agree with your characterization i think the judge for sure are considered th saumur sponsors was necessary to this motion that some moving along of this for how this all started was the judge or the judges law clerk or whoever it was obviously picked up the file after having to file whatever the judges file case i've ever hear we have a hearing in state court over my objection and and the judge made some rulings already and made some denials of their motion for pull in marion junction the plaintiff in this case testified that what he wanted what he wanted in this case and you've got the transcript was he wanted the actual stock certificates he didn't want money he wanted the stock certificates and he lost that part of the ca e he was that was ruled against him in the preliminary injunction at which point i did what i told the judge i was going to do which was because of the diversity and the other things i was going to remove a federal court which i  court time rules and right i would agree with that you think if you give it out that a company has time i think i think that they're counting under the federal counting rule where weekends and holidays for matters that are ten days or last don't count so i think that's where that judge be i think that's that is right but i think that's where that date comes from i think it's the calculations by not counting the weekends and way that was done correctly or not i don't know and just two more things do you have any explanation for why indication that the judge made that determination that is correct and we don't know that you did the opposite either we just don't know what you asked him to because you're telling us that he could have it was right to do it you're asking me should he have done it and i think he should have done i don't know he does though it seems to me like he did look at the whole case and then we can argue about what that said but when he says i'm not going to look i guess that is so he didn't but that the ok yes is your answer yes why because i don't think the complaining of the complaint only right ok fine but but if you're saying he didn't have to consider the adequacy of the complaint he can simply say you didn't answer period two moves just like if you don't file your notice of different number but why would we have a different approach to them soon the summary judgment rules require a lot whole lot more in the way of form and substance and answering with the affidavits and stuff it's a whole different thing all the more reason why the judge should have to do it if he if there's no reason to do it well then when you're talking about a just and that's all as opposed to any other other kinds of motions and we have a whole sort of case law about when you can find out when judge can dismiss as a sanction which requires coming through a bunch of s and the judge goes through a reason why he decided now he actually did it he went through a lot of reasons why he didn't grant a motion to extend time but he didn't go through any reasons why he then dismissed it as opposed to something else like some other sanction well i read his order