rs in this case that lawrence moscowitz c l u limited is a virgin islands company and diverse from the defendant if we had filed the complaint just on behalf of laurence limited as the plaintiff there would be no issue that the court has jurisdiction nevertheless there were two issues on which the district court reached its decision both of which are characterized as very close cause and not obvious in such circumstances the the federal court is supposed to retain jurisdiction when it's a close case this court's decision in or from eastlink testing that on the colorado river abstention just for a moment if if you could go back to the diversity issue i'm nuts try understand how mister moscowitz could be dropped as a plaintiff's when some of the relief sought in the complaint is personal as to him declaration someone yes when we can certainly remove that remove that request for relief in our amended pleading and that's exactly what this court did anger case your honor in two thousand and sixteen judge jacobs you were on that panel and that's exactly that's exactly what happened there as well as in the district where decision that we that we cited from two thousand and seventeen the new cut in that in that case in that event you would be forgoing relief that your complaint says you need i understand that but that really be the plaintiff deprived of its federal choice of federal forum and let me just talk about for a minute i cause i think this is a very important one of those or do you why do you say that the dismissal was with prejudice because it didn't give us exactly and so for example the new canaan case there were seven causes of action only two of them related to the non diverse party and the court said there it's not futaba all because if that party gets dropped then the other five causes of action can proceed and that's the same thing here judge jacobs where if we drop some of the relief requested on behalf of mister moscowitz those claims can  be pursued someplace else and moscowitz c l u can cannot would not be deprived of its of its of its federal then us and what i wanted to focus on was the purpose of sure diversity jurisdiction right is to allow an out of state party to escape the prejudice the state in the state court by ensuring that a fair federal tribunals is available and if mister mos company don't feel they can get a fair hearing right or wrong that is a legitimate purpose and so in the will they get a fair hearing in saint paul well that's that's that's their view   still not a party in the state court proceedings despite the fact that a o p as amended it's state court complained twice to add additional parties it has never brought mosque with c l u limited into the case and in in the in the state court proceedings there's been a motion to dismiss from on behalf of mister mosque which that was filed hold on i can get you the date that was filed in august of two thousand and nineteen it has not been decided there have been three injunction motions filed by lp in that case none of which they were all filed in two thousand and one teen none of those have been decided and if you look at the mos cone case the moses cone case is that when a district court dismisses a case on colorado river grounds or other grounds it presumably concludes the parallel store state court will be an adequate vehicle for the complete and prompt resolution of the issues and the judge in the state court ok who was poisoned about mister moscowitz for months and months and months in other proceedings in which mister moscowitz could not defend himself and was not a party ok they told a lot of lies about about him and about what he did the judge was poisoned too to what his role was in connection with a o p s business with lies he finally was able to defend himself and his motion to dismiss has been pending now for over a year so he cannot get a prompt resolution in a state where and he cannot get a fair resolution in the state court and the vast vast majority of the relief in this on the colorado river abstention doctrine again this is from the case itself what the case is that abstention is limited to three very narrow categories not of which of here which is if there is a federal constitutional issue that state court decision could moot if there are difficult questions of state law policy or if there are federal jurisdiction has been invoked to restrain state criminal powers this case involves none of those things and so it was an absolutely abuse of discretion to simply rely on the existence of a parallel state court proceeding in which nothing had occurred at the time of the motion to dismiss answer my see my time is up to the state court action was not slowed down in fact in the state court action nothing had happened at the time the motion to dismiss in this case was filed the only  has gone on in the lower court action it's true that there have been a series of litigations concerning help and its former management and its business partners and these issues are y h but the real issue here is that this case is pretty simple because the district court has jurisdiction and should exercise it and what irrespective of the progress of you know whether or not there have been decisions in these various motions that have been brought below or whether or not discovery has been commenced really pales in relation to the amount of briefing and the amount of time and consideration that the state court judge has already put into these issues if this case is to be to remain in federal court many of the motions that were made in the state court that are you know sub justice that just defendant is considering w  multiple rounds of briefing on motions dismiss from various from various parties there have been pull him an area injunction motions there have been a host of activity that is  not just because those have not resulted in decisions from the from the state court does not mean that nothing has happened down below we've been we've had a very busy year and a half we've been briefing we've been making arguments it's just not true to say nothing has happened down below and and related to that i think it's also important to note that one of our motions was a motion to consolidate the state court action involving off cliffs with the related case against and she known as park west and when we  argued that motion to consolidate the judge didn't give us a decision at that point she made it clear that at a minimum the actions would be continued to be heard together know that her practice was to bring all the going now we've managed to speak no they're not and i will say that part of the reason for that is there was a status conference order in the related park west case that status conference order indicated that deposition should be moscowitz is contending are are errors by the by the district court so he doesn't like the fact that he doesn't like the fact that the district court did not give him in his view appropriate way to the appellant statement in a declaration that he intended to change down the file to the united states virgin islands and you know there's really use arguments concerning this particular contract you would have argument on identical contracts proceeding in two different courts you're opening yourself up to contrary decisions on the mean contracts and it question is why would leave to him and just in this federal case be futile well i think that when the district court made its decision it's thought that it had two options it could get declined to hear the case because the subject matter jurisdiction and when it did that its a kindly tone meant because even if there was subject matter jurisdiction it found that all of these other reasons compelled it to abstain from did and maybe i should have asked your friend this question but was there a request for leave to a decide this without fear as a as a party pointed i don't believe you could your honor and the reason i say that is because the various contracts that are relevant here one of those includes a i doesn't know his personal facts there you know there's a whole host of factors that the district court was able to rely on when making a decision whether or not and then with respect to colorado abstention you know a lot of the issues that counsel for mister mock with raises concerns is the district court is the state court flow well you know we're also in the middle of pandemic and i have to say that a delay of several months waiting for a motion to dismiss decision especially in a case of this complexity with the number of moving pieces you know it doesn't surprise me and i don't think it's unusual i've had cases with a much longer delay and i court says that delay is actually a very important factor and whether or not state court proceeding at issue is it is fair but let me just also say that the mere overlap between the state court action on the federal election is not sufficient under moses cone or colorado river to meet the exceptional circumstances test all of the cases that have abstained that have been cited by the parties are cases us that opportunity because there was no oral argument there was no evidentiary hearing almost all of the cases cited on the twelve the one issues were just in the papers were decided after an evidentiary hearing there was nothing of that  sort that occurred here so we had no opportunity to even ask ask for that let me just i just want to also address the claim that we were stonewalling the state court action that is absolutely not true in the state court action discovery as stated by virtue of the c p l our rules because the her motions to dismiss pending that are now been pending over a year and lastly counsel is completely misleading you when he says the district that the state court judge restrained the funds that are the subject of the mosque would c l u contract that is not what happen what happened was we voluntarily agreed to stipulate to hold some of those funds pending the court's decision of their