and order it just record may not x it was font a in remanding a case based on a procedural defect in removal the th circuit in its case precinct reaching that conclusion were taught not if we were to hold that we cannot review their reading in order is there any other way that continental and federal court jurisdiction is my understanding here it's absolutely undisputed that the amount is over seventy five thousand dollars even if you agree that we did correct and that and you include that it meets bad but you don't have any the nd and apparently and you're not given an opportunity to add more to yes your honor if you if you look at and if you're correct that several of the cases in this area involving reversals have remained orders have involved the same district or if you if you look at the order here a rule fifty nine dollars motion putting in additional evidence and putting in a stipulation of the parties to show that in fact the amount of controversy was easily satisfied at that point on the thing is that if you look didn't feed him and the reason the mailing was important was that the district judge realized he had made a mistake he made a miscalculation on whether the case had been timely removed and this was we've decided the case on appeal the legal significance of that is no that it relate wishes jurisdiction in the court of appeals and returns it to the district court so by analogy here wouldn't we say that the certification by the clerk of the central district of california that this is the order of remey which was then delivered to the clerk of the superior court of los angeles county executive to the issu mandate by the district court say i no longer have jurisdiction over this case if that's true shouldn't the district court have simply refused to consider your rule fifty yes even if he's wrong in making that declaration we don't have jurisdiction under one thousand four hundred and forty seven to review it i'm having a really tough time i  decision did he have authority to make the decision and here he decided that the amount in controversy was not met he decided that based on the face of the notice of removal and one thing i'd like to face in this is section subsection c two capital b it's specifies that when a case is removed as was here are based on an allegation that the amount in controversy is satisfied removal of the action is proper on the basis of an amount in controversy asserted under some paragraph which is where we are if the district court finds by a preponderance by the preponderance of the evidence that the amount of controversy amount of controversy was twenty five thousand dollars because the jurisdictional limit is well and he also said the continental has alleged that there was a settlement demand over seventy five thousand dollars but that may not be that his failure to do that is the procedural misstep and i realize i'm using a lot of what loaded terms of court into focus on yes because all the like i can't get out one day and say i have way too many cases now i really want to clean the thing i want to clean things out now i am just going to had to send cases back and your wife says it's over court can review whether the procedure was appropriate or lawful and of course just can't do whatever they want i mean if if the judge makes a mistake on the merits of a mountain controversy but the court as your honor the court can't get up and say you know i don't want these cases on my dock i'm just going to use the magic words i don't have jurisdiction remanded you have to go through the process and that's that's the critical thing what this court needs and review is is this procedure permissible when the statute says you make a finding by a preponderance of the evidence and the district court unquestionably decided based on the face of those removal i see you have gone beyond my time  that your side even stipulate it's number seventy five thousand dollars it says over seventy five and it looks to me like the district courts just given the thumb of the nose here say i'm like hey i don't want this many cases let me look at the ways i can get rid of some of them whether you know i mean that's what it looks like here well but of course i mean i think i heard counsel can see that what the  court said that it was doing was dismissing on the basis of lack of jurisdiction and why in the fifty nine you order it said i'm no longer after his diction because i previously remanded for lack of jurisdiction and that's actually very important  think at least six or seven times the district court did not say that it was remanded on the basis of lack of duress diction which of course is exactly the opposite to hear and what you are feeling as smart as judge is sometimes when we figure things out proceeded very far both because we lost our place in line as it were inferior to being removed the state courts had to stop the calendar and it took us some time to get back on track and you know now were in his precarious situation where we don't want to proceed to motion practice or anything that handily just positive and then have that all be a waste of time if it turns out that well but that you're you're beyond the stage where continental  the federal district court has no jurisdiction that this point then what do we order the district court to do that it has the authority to do i mean it's almost in the nature of a writ of to the court of appeals directing the district court to do what issue an order directed to the clerk of the superior court of los angeles county saying my bad send it back  i think that the options at this point are going to regard most of any unfairness that in here is and the circumstance of i think the options at this point are are pretty limited because of the statutory structure and because of th on its own without the him but decides what they must amend twenty five the th district court i think disregarded the ultimate allegation they're the sort of elemental allegation based on the underpinnings that basically said there weren't enough building blocks here but even if the district court as well so that it's going to move right to the district court have the authority at any time during the litigation to ask itself is there a basis for federal jurisdiction here and rightly or wrongly the district great looked at it and said i don't think that simply alleging seventy five thousand or more is enough therefore i'm dismissing for lack of get another by the apple but also i think this is the dark cave so if you look at what the dark case that it said what allegations are absolutely fine at the end of dart was expressly concerned with working for forty six albeit in a class has a presumption doesn't it that doesn't exist under normal diversity jurisdiction the presumption is that if the amount of controversy is more than five million dollars then the case of properly removal right so that would be a reason to how can a judge as fact finder apply a preponderance of the evidence standard to to up the levy as opposed to evidence in support of the allegation that's flat i don't think the judge what acting as fact finder i think the opinion that was in the ballpark of all the things all the factors it was supposed to consider it cited to all of the allegations in the notice of the removal that could possibly end in the complaint that could plausibly support him out in controversy and then continental only think the district court had before it was an allegation of seventy five thousand and a statement that the point i've had previously made a settlement the man in excess of that amount so how wonder a a pleading i i don't think that that is what the statute is saying i think the allegation stage gets taken care of before we even get to the preponderance of the evidence so st step is you have to actually allege the amount  counsel let me ask a different question what should continental have pled besides there's more than seventy five thousand at issue we're not arguing that the court should adopt the district cour pleadings standard or otherwise sanction a higher pleading standard oh you would concede that that is sufficient under way through me federal notice believing that it merely needs to be short and plain i mean your honor just just just briefly i'd like to i mean it it makes my head hurt as well to be honest i fretted re read because i'm getting are it's hard to pull them together but but really what continental is saying is the district court couldn't dismiss on the basis of the pleadings here because that's a procedural decision but then they distinguish certain cases and including the atkins case which is a recent case of those court unpublished but very similar here at the motion and then it's not really anything about the nature of the dismissing on the basis of the pleading that's not the issue the issue is the court acting's it was fun to so where that gets us is then where in the world where this is actually would have given the continental presumably an opportunity to respond to your objection but actually your honor it i think continental initial point based on the class action fairness  issue we might be entitled to remand if the district court said yes i agree that that's a defect and removal procedure right but continental is saying is not me not that well you can raise that if you're a party but not if you're the court they're saying if anybody raises it we get another bite at the apple and i'm not from what i've said i don't know why what's inside mr simpson if the judge said i don't like mr simpson he really annoyed me the last wrong standard but if if in fact spain had seventy five thousand dollars and meets the pleading standards but the judge decides well i have a different standard of people if people want to be in front of me they don't they don't just have to meet the normal played standard they have a different standard they have to meet why isn't that term of for my whatever term trot out or books you know i think is the appropriate avenue iran or if ultimately we lacked jurisdiction to review this matter but then go on to explain that some language what the district court should have done in the hope that the next time around the district judge will do it right and i think that would be appropriate in his courts the supervisor incapacity generally district courts like to do what the court of appeal even if they're not required to do that so i think not getting your plane standards right ok and that he didn't know i'm going to be on this case that by the same token adds i think it's telling though that there isn't any basis for what continental is saying the procedure that's a disfavor without giving the party its any opportunity to explain why you may be wrong well there's no there is no case law that says it's that that's the rule i think maybe as a matter of practice judges one to get these things right want don't want to end up in a in a circumstance in which they you know everybody's hands were bound but we want to correct this issue that you know i'd actually go back to ju hard to accept if you don't think that if you think that they just are they know that they're doing it wrong and they are trying to hide from you that doesn't that doesn't have the same acceptability as i don't agree magic words with the court as long as it says remaining for lack of jurisdiction it can do whatever it wants it has to be color and hear other less the words are truly magic worse what happened in elmer is exactly the same thing that happened here vacated an order no indication of health and arms same thing i think what the court and the seven circuit cases and all these cases were concluded they can review they direct that the reason the mailing was significant there was the judge wanted to change his mind he decided he had just i made a mistake i want to change or you were changing judge clowes as mine for him well and but but nd or fourteen or fifteen or e mail and order returns the case to the state courts and the federal court has no power to retrieve it as the statute makes clear if the orders based on section one thousand four hundred and forty seven see a district court has no power to correct or v we now so hold after certification to the state court a federal court said we're not bound by the magic words we can look at the end of scene question of whether formed is jurisdictional and it's not so that's that's the key is this court can look at was was a permissible procedure used have before us everything he had before him which is simply not horrible that he could make a finding of fact that the amount of controversy wasn't satisfied when in fact in the statute says you take evidence he never took it we know what he did and what he did is not permissi