bill gray hairs and ron thomas skipper thomas jr as you say this is a case that's been consolidated to where they differentiate is a damon runyon rhyme bilbo's is a little bit different so i want to just go ahead and talk about scription and any inclusion of an on the st party wouldn't have affected or would not have been outcome determinative for those guys claims simply because prescription had been interrupted i didn't even realize until after i had submitted my brief and was having a conversation with one of my co counsels and he's like whoa you know did you file workers compensation claims and i was like well yes he said well you should have included  that interrupt a prescription at least that's those two guys and this and i guess maybe i compartmentalize this so much in my mind that just completely disregarded it for the federal suit which obviously i should not have been he was a ruse it was  raised in a motion to reconsider and that was the ruling with robin motion to reconsider and it did have that information in there and i feel like the court's failure to consider that in the motions that are you know resulted in  somewhat of what i want to get into is that we talk about some of the other things like rule fifteen and how that relates back and i believe that there's a desire there st seems to be maintained and when they raised it and i didn't put that in my original response to the prescription my motion to reconsider is where i included it because i felt like before the case was completely over that the judge did need to know that this information was there and yes i should absolutely have included it and i did not and that's just really a shame on me but at the end of the day i do believe that our laws do allow for people to correct mistakes that and for all fifteen to apply and that there needs to not be a new claim that was added which there was not there's needs to be no new party added after the tapper of prescription which is not like a no  da we didn't add a new party we did that and claim and there's really no prejudice in this case to the people that were named at the date of the original filing and so whenever i file to correct my mistake it should have related court service that a lot of times will take longer to serve people so that just for me there's just no prejudice you know i mean that the civil service doesn't help here you're a prescription as i understand it because they're served after prescription  do on scramble you know where is made in that kind of thing so just through it is your opportunity to clarify for us you know what happened we take the case as president but you're doing good so just you know keep going however my clients were not aware of who released what they did know that there was a release and so the concept of conscionable it to me is if i don't know who heart whose health harmed me then prescription can start to run until that time and in this case i believe that westlake of the sixty six are really kind of reliant on their disclosure to the l t hugh to service some type of notification to the public that that there was a really nice and that somebody has been harmed and they are there are some issues with regard to the dates of the l t he received some documentation from phillips and less like so what i have shown and some of the attachments that i'm included with my briefing that what we had to dress in the motion to reconsider was in the l d q did not receive the paperwork as accepted until september the twenty and that's where the date of the service really kind of comes in because it regardless if i put it in on the st defendant that description would have been interrupted by the service on the defendant on september th and so  i used to work at the q when i was in college and even though they received it on the th i know that a shadow of a doubt in my mind that was not uploaded on their website that same day and if the defendants are using that as some form of also included the neighboring facilities by chance because i said well if one of the facilities released and they were talking about how there were alarms going off this asshole so i said well let me go and include these other people so that if i fall that there won't be any prescription it's basically what we would call it here the discovery room in other words the statue of the patients doesn't begin to run until you would have discovered your injuries that basically what your argument is not necessarily the injury because i believe the injury was they are but they just didn't know what all defendants needed to be included which is why i took a shot in the dark and included the neighboring facilities as well so in lake charles that i'm sure there are multiple but there are three facilities and they're all right next to each other my gentlemen were working on one facility something happened when the time nobody really knew and they couldn't breathe they're running around they didn't know where the harmful fumes and the t that i filled out i didn't actually discover that philip sixty six dollars and westlake chemical had released chemicals that breached the perimeter of their facility until november th of twenty  thousand because we had received discovery in the worker's comp claims and all and of the stuff they sent to the dea all said yeah we released chemicals but it didn't escape the bounds of our perimeter because we have i guess they have some type of notification that lets them absolutely they would have been the right person to suit in this everything would have been good as far as prescription to them however we didn't actually know that westlake chemical in philip sixty six had released the chemicals until well prescription the question i have is the does the relation back docket under rule fifteen is it serve to correct improper or incompetent in the sense that description is interrupted or if you go d by the so what half feel like at the defendants are trying to do here is to say louisiana procedural law and apply it to discus description would be oh just so i think i think what judge wilson's asking is what would be the rule in lou i mean both i mean the state law in federal laws does have an avenue for you to relate back to the date of the original filing but i did i get to the original image of bollywood relate back to the original file and my question though i'm not sure so you're not aware of a case that would point me in that direction if i had had an opportunity to research for one i'm sure i could probably find one but i just i'm drawing a blank on  it right now well you've you've reserve some time for rebuttal so you can sort of contemplate on judd's wilson's question and perhaps in space if you have any answer to it you certainly have an opportunity on i'll also mention that philip sixty six has ceded their oral argument time to me this morning so the arguments i'll be making today are pickable from both at least we really have two separate issues before the court this morning  attempted to be introduced so as far the st argument and i know a judge on here would ask about what was raised it with kind our position is that the district court properly dismissed appellants claim as prescribe and those provisions going to civil code set forth by the louisiana legislature provide a timeframe profiling suit the elements of the cause of action and to in response to judge wilson's question it also applies serve the descendants within the one year period based on the facts that have before the court and this record was filed on august th two thousand one hundred which was within the one year period we we grant that we can see that the problem is the service was not confected until after the one year period the fact that the court did not have jurisdiction at the time of filing it went to and there was no federal question before the court and misery or non  prescribed claim so we have under louisiana substantive law the claim is prescribed and appellants are attempting to use procedural rules to back channel this and go back to extend the life of a claim when the louisiana legislature has thousand so basically the exact same scenario we just lifted up and put over in an incompetent state court this case on its face is prescribed all day long now if the federal court and then allows this backdoor is there any moment to that that in other words there's not an order anywhere that the district court entered finding that it lacked jurisdiction until again it gets to the two of the six motions where clearly was exercising jurisdiction of this one but by that time jurisdiction had been fixed but the court properly looked back to the time of filing and that this court has already dressed in anderson versus phoenix apart for a rise in the western district a very similar situation and this court found because it was found in company jurisdiction yes that is the problem and they did not achieve service within the one year period it and to the other piece of that that's before the court this morning on the motion for reconsideration und compensation claims being asserted and you know this court has already spoken on fifty nine and sixty and clearly stated those are extraordinary measures and should be utilized varyingly that's template the hydra c recall the motion here to bring up workers comp and country non was all the rule fifty nine rule six must read is it the case though that in fact i mean that that might have now we hear today for the rd by the ample when these arguments in the cases in the evidence that they're d alleging d could have been brought to the court's attention and our attention earlier we there's been some comments made that we knew or should have known about workers information but turning to make us aware of it and the court aware that information is in response to our motion to dismiss around the prescription and then we could have responded to that there are also some comments made about the contra nonono go back to that as well just to make sure i get this on the record that at westlake and or philip sixty six may have missed leg appellants about certain information or failed to provide them with certain information and to review that information indicates to the contrary on the very day the emission the emission occurred and if you look now there's a power outage affected several plants and like charles as anybody knows from draw the line ten through lake within the year period they have a problem identifying the catcher chemical companies in every problem suing us in time the issue is on the shervin s of that petition i guess the only other argument that we haven't really talked  and thirty one which was raised by appellants at this court that the district court should have transferred the case to another jurisdiction and you know we disagree because one the helots never asked for a western district would have had to transfer the case and they've been so inclined to another federal court it was not a federal court with jurisdiction because there was no better weston and there was no diversity at that time so there was no place else to go but dismiss and failing to present evidence of workers compensation claims timely intense then i mean those arguments were weighed but these appellant still have remedies available to them obviously at least two of them have worker's compensation claim so presuming that they quick work on rimbaud i somewhat sort of try to give you that softball do look it up and you did your good thinking on your feet as what good counsel do but my question is we hear you in terms of you saying that covers it but segue into the point counsel ops it makes is that the the failure to affect she wait to service a process under louisiana law within the one year period in my words here killie's feel i mean it is fatal to another word her argument the thrust of it is that you obviously knew the defendants were because a suit was time to file within the one year difficulties the service didn't occur within that time period her argument is that that's a fatal wound if you will and so i'm just saying given that you've given us the alexander mol case saying its own point in response to judge wilson's question ok what case do i look at under who is in the law fifteen point you understand of course and yes her and i just don't feel like that article is substantive for me it's really more procedural in so that's why i guess i'm having such a big issue arguing the point here is it's let in louisiana courts decide when they feel like it is a court of competent jurisdiction in federal court whenever federal court has rules that specify what is and what isn't so federal court  just they're asking you essentially to apply louisiana procedural law and instead of federal procedural law you know and as i don't have really a better answer for you then  guys can get some relief here in the perceive the federal procedure is clear that they have a desire for suits to be maintained and not kicked out and there is a huge issue as a lot of billet in this case know that both those cases are consolidated and so in our disposition we will have them in line is we deal with it so the case will be deemed submitted we will get it decided as quickly as we can  thank you both for your service and you are excused for the day have a great day about it welcome