appellant worked as a securities broker or invest for approximately ten years at the same time also worked in a joint employee relationship whereby jackson county bank would receive referral for all of his commissions coming  making various other statements indicating that they were in fact potentially trying to recover the securities book a business that he had built for investors broker dealer he filed a motion to dismiss clearly drawing the lines from how far a commercial bank can go under the networking arrangement that they are not permitted to own of securities book of business they have to communicate this properly to the customers and therefore because he was only taking customers in the securities or otherwise but i think we're not i guess are you asking us to review the remainder order are you just asking us to review the sanctions i'm asking you to review the sanction or but i am asking that you review the room and order in relation to other was right or wrong we're not asking for the remand were to be overturned but the court can still consider whether or not it should have been remanded if so how can reference that are that are you asking us just to consider that in the context of whether or not sanctions were more intent correct yes ok this is based on and you should've been remanded therefore it's an automatic reversal fees to some extent automatic abuse of discretion and that's you know that's to the extent that we are arguing against the remaining order thank you seem to be going further so i just want to clarify your reply brief as i recall also said just to be clear but what i'm concerned about is this this case starts out as a case filled with state court theories and there's no diversity here there's a breach of a non case in federal court where it didn't belong in federal court then perhaps sanctions under rule eleven or something are are called for at the most i can see in way of preemption from the federal structure regulating brokers might be a preemption defense but it's well known that's not enough to support federal question jurisdiction this is not an area that the ill named complete preemption doctrine applies here in the supreme court has never said that in fact there are blue sky laws all over the place or that there's quite a bit of parallel regulation of securities brokers banks and the like so it's hard for me to see  be breached or not and i don't see how that has anything to do with the securities law regulation the broker dealer will argue the primarily because if you're in the securities industry you have to be registered and you have to be licensed if you're moving so far with your argument to the point where you're saying we're going to control or try to control a court proceeding on mr do seventy one can use his license your importantly we're going to see orders that he deliver information to us and we're not going to talk about general we're not going to talk about the particular area that person can't promise that they won't open up a competing office two doors down the road and that's just people it's like saying because he's a securities dealer he can't promise to pay for the paper it's a liberty for his printer i mean of course there are all kinds of contracts that people enter into that are governed by state law even though they're in a federally regulated industry that's correct but one of the things we appears as a defense if you first filed in state court and go around the securities and exchange act the way no person or entity is permitted to i guess if you file and say we're going to actually you know the least preemption argument i mean by any no authority to do anything here because federal law pre amps and you'll have to follow the procedures of surrender which may toss it off into arbitration made to all sorts it's either defense or it's completely preempted my own anything please preemption and you know i think this is correct we're not arguing that the state court lacked jurisdiction we're only arguing it's federal court had original jurisdiction and it could have been brought in federal court are you saying that these claims are actually federal claims that the plaintiff brought yes you know our position is if you're going to if you're going to bring claims to recover information trade secrets everything that would make up a securities book of business especially for a securities broker who stayed with his broker dealer then you are basically saying we're a security stealer and you would have to register or are the minimum you'd have to make an argument why you didn't have to or how you would go about that through the same statute that regulates the person you're  i mean mr you said one has to do everything under those rules and statutes and as a stand right now he can't even call on him as a defense where they say he's stealing property and blocking their access he's saying you know that's my obligations under federal i can't give that to anybody not registered with my broker exchange act i would agree with that the to read the complaint and understand that is what they're trying to recover is that look at this mess and in fact they are they are in sort of their asserting their rights under that statute because there's no other way to do it when you can't recover those types of another word or two about the timeliness argument yes so i take it your position is that the small consolation of issues was clear from the very beginning and so  that question rhetorical a but i think it's a question worth asking at this point and rise is so important for you to find to him that the remand order was erroneous when i think we all agree you don't have to even go that far you your honor to make it clear really the biggest reason we're here not that nine thousand dollars is not a lot of money to a young family is that we can get a voice in the fact that mr du seven has an entire regulatory body has to answer to much of what he's being accused of doing wrong would be a violation of the federal rules but we're not getting a dialogue on it at all that's primarily why we argue labor here we're saying this is what regulates imbecile you determine that he's done something right wrong or in the middle that you won't dialogue with us about that  the statutes or the general regulations or rules rather you're bound by them or not that's how you determine if he's done the right thing both on the non compete and issues with the information and other things such as that as far as what is happening from the state court i would just say that we had a significant issue with how things have unfolded there we have a lot of orders in against us without an opportunity to say anything we had i think to the people so that have been consolidated that we're dealing with that as well so i'm not as confident