petition to compel my client's new jersey was against discrimination case which was venue and that at that time in the new jersey superior court in the arbitration in new york city in fairness to judgment man it was not address respectfully i did not make an appearance on mr swain's behalf before judge mcmahon because it was my position then as it is my position at this very second that there is no jurisdiction in the southern district of new york over matthew swain or his new jersey law gets discrimination no interest on the result of your position is that if there is a state case that relates to the matter that the the mean she wrote about the exact issue iran is talking about and she spoke about how vaden did have that reach and if i may there are some quotes from vaden that support the proposition of reaching the diversity of citizenship else extended it but invaded itself the court wrote the entire actual controversy between the parties as they have framed it would be litigated in federal court the entire actual controversy between the parties artful dodges by a section four petitioner should not divert us from recognizing the actual de mentions of that controversy and finally at section four of the federal arbitration act it does not give in this case from as license to recapture to rise an existing controversy or manufacture a new controversy in an effort to obtain a federal court's jurisdiction and that's what happened and they didn't says you have to is there a single reference  ok so and this is in my papers there's a there's a northport decision and that said no to what it is that i'm talking about now and we already have already precludes because i believe it was a fifth circuit decision fitch and i'm doing my best to remember these by memory this case names but i know that the fifth circuit decision was the basis upon which to stay whoa talked about the face of the petition is as far as you go to look for the parties to determine diversity and risk is already rejected your arguments with regards  that north port relied on that u s supreme court case but that u s supreme court case didn't deal with diversity jurisdiction at all and if you read north board itself is sort of limited how that moses case dealt with that diversity controversy jurisdiction is on there vague in reachable they didn't go to that versity of citizenship but they said a mountain controversy jurisdiction  down that road it looked that vaden as expanding the federal arbitration act then applied vein to a different section then section four so respectfully that's why i think the northport decision participated in this arrest much salute he aided and abetted and that's in l a the new jersey recognized cause of action different than title seven this is in new jersey law so that's why he's in that case so that diversity of says unship basis on the face of the petition that was presented to judge mcmahon is only by her mess ok so what he's the is a name defendant in this state court case that's my feeding diversity issue but then when we look at the opposition brief this court they say the petitions focus was on the parties dispute no no it wasn't the petition was based on diversity of citizenship but i think now her measure realizes they made a mistake whether intentional or otherwise to my client's prejudice and on page forty four of their opposition brief they say the focus of the petition was the dispute that's true that's a federal question right that's the  employee's employment discrimination case in the arbitration i gave each see blurb in a footnote about the seriousness of doing something like that to an individual and his rights to be free from workplace discrimination i believe that a southern district judge like judge mcmahon has a sewer spot they responsibility to make sure i'm doing the right thing here and the vein cases leading case on the question and if what herms argues in their opposition is true which is that it was the dispute not what they said was the bases being that versus citizenship then we go back down to new jersey right away because there's no federal question this is a pure state law case pure and simple so we made a motion for judicial notice your honor and and i did do that because there are representations in herms papers to the division judge in new jersey where they specifically say that bautista is a necessary and indispensable party i use those rule my nine hundred words with purpose obviously because they say as a third party beneficiary he's nowhere near anywhere on the herms dispute resolution procedure that they say my client signed so what he used his name isn't on there but he's a third party beneficiary sarette away you're raising issues in the state court matter that's why for the judicial notice underlying state court lawsuit and that's because it's just too easy for a state court plaintiff to destroy federal diversity through joinder of a non diverse defendant and that's exactly what happened here while mr swain characterizes mr battista as a supervisor and a member of air mss upper management in his state court complaint mister was not mr swain's supervisor mr swain supervised m the exact opposite of true is true mr swain was the head of the short hills store and mr booties to work for him and the allegation of upper management is simply not true mr include going to be included in the arbitration that you are bringing that's unclear the entire matter was sent to arbitration by judgment man and under the rules of the aaa of the employment dispute rules the jurisdiction of be that he belongs in ormond ration i don't know what mr swain's position will be but but that's going to be a up to the up to the arbitrator to decide what judge mcmahon decided is here's a dispute it's subject to  the other point with regard to mr boaties the is that if you look at the complaint the only specific allegation against him is that either he or someone else made slurs against mr swain he or someone else so the again in doctors associates against hamilton this court held that as with any federal action diversity of citizenship under the f a a is determined by reference to the parties before the district court not the parties in a state court action and no other appellate court has ever held to the contrary not even decisions which have been rendered post made and those decisions are all correctly because the supreme court invade and expressly limited its holding to federal question jurisdiction not to diversity jurisdiction applying vaden look through approach to diversity jurisdiction would have precisely the opposite effect intended by the supreme court which was to expand the opportunities to utilize the federal courts to compel arbitration requiring a look through for diversity jurisdiction would essentially vis that every new of subject matter jurisdiction limiting access to the federal courts and substantially undermining the strong federal policy favoring or betray action mr swa option available but the reason emmons went to federal court is they exercise their rights under the f a a and the f a a says you know there's a there isn't a a location and you're saying it's our policy to encourage access to the federal courts to get arbitration and yet congress trues not to create federal question jurisdiction under the f a a right which you could easily have done yes so that that does somewhat undermine the notion that whenever there's a jurisdictional question an arbitration case we should somehow resolve it in favor of federal jurisdiction look through one that will increase federal jurisdiction don't look through  statute was passed the whole purpose was to say the federal courts will enforce arbitration because of judicial hostility or arbitration in the federal and the state courts so the purpose was to encourage arbitration i welcome any questions thank you applies supervisor and has rejected federal title seven and supreme court law but that is an issue as judge lynch suggested that could have been possibly explored in the state court which is where this case should be returned with the southern district of the season in order vacated respectfully and the petition filed in the southern district