said that a decision is final when appeal when the district judge says i'm done because otherwise with the district judge says i'm done when there are more issues to be resolved it wouldn't be possible to appeal and ask us to tell the district court to finish the job so why isn't this case covered by that principle when the just ripped judge says i'm done then an appeal lies well and your honor respectfully i think that the district court can only decide what's before it and when you have a defendant the first of all is entitle to reach other grounds usually there would be notice given if it further grounds being given but the point is that would just be a procedural mistake if i read judge else's opinion she says she's finished with this case judgment is entered in favor of defendants she wouldn't be saying judgment is entered if she didn't mean i'm finished point to taking your own understand that i still submit that you can only decide what was before and she wasn't asked to sign out and have just said maybe that's not so good at that the whole case is before her and your opponents actually also make the argument that this additional count that you're referring to really just raises the possibility of punitive damages which isn't really a separate theory it really can and they do make that point and it's not correct if you look at count five there are very different factual allegations in there about the sale of the p p ws to the initial purchase there rather than and or whether you envision a remain to the state court which you then predict is going to look at this part of the case and say that it's either to later that there's something else wrong with it so so foreign sovereign immunity that couldn't be more clear the foreign sovereigns have a right to be in federal court and i don't see i mean if the claim against a were so frivolous as to fail the bill versus toward standard or something like that i could imagine the federal court just dismissing the foreign sovereign which points to the reason that the insurgents court would be gone perhaps there would be room that's see that's kind of my option one do you want to just record to have jurisdiction over the claim against and say adjudicate it apparently there are arguments that both sides might make about that and then if it have to worry about concerns of federal jurisdiction for the fact is if this case this is a little bit unusual because normally if you had a diversity case or an alien age case with an in state defendant you wouldn't be removing but this case has been removed on a different ground and otherwise what's wrong with with jurisdiction in the district court looks to me like citizens of australia are suing various entities there's actually a defective jurisdictional allegation here some people are it's right to a federal form but isn't there also a concern about manipulation of jurisdiction and i really believe that's what's occurring here why is it manipulating you well when you file a claim against a foreign sovereign two years too late under any standard four years after i f complaint knowing that they're going to remove it to federal court not to give your federal jurisdiction when you really don't want to proceed you're not going to do any collective judgment against a so you just want to get to this federal court that there is one of the right plaintiffs of the chosen form that arguably is manipulation of very good for you well to tell you the truth i just blew it after thirty seven years of practice i just blew it to there's no other reason to say i just it's a bad time my life and i was ill and i just i just blew it that's my responsibility so so much i can say about that i where would have one thing about that your honor and that is that the district court seems to have penalize me not just for that but seems to have without saying it deny me the right to refer to evidence in the record placed there by defendants and i don't think that's the purpose of that the record becomes the facts before the district court but that's not the same thing as saying the party who filed the motion wins or just has to be evaluated but i don't i'm not sure the district court did what you are accusing it of it well i do use the word accused but i can point to numerous parts of the record where she says where the district court says there's no evidence of such and such and there is but it's in evidence that the defendant's place in the record that i put there for example the maintenance manager for trans  the district court said there's no evidence of that whether it is if you look at doyle's deposition or if you look at the a t s p report itself and turning to the marital i would like to talk about honeywell's d p w as for a moment and the defendant honeywell says i have to prove three foot four things court referred to that and the a t f the report said it was probably operational on the aircraft at the time based upon the c v r from prior flights and three the defense say i have to prove a defect and for the pilots would have reacted properly now what they really have a bone to pick with me about is i can't prove a defect and that's where i think the district court helped me out because the district courts found only backup for second the honeywell witnesses said that the design intent of their g p ws is to give an alert of approaching train but not just any alert and alert in sufficient time to avoid a crash that's a design intent and that's what they testified to the district court found that the only alert under the best possible circumstances here would have been five seconds before impact there are many products that we can imagine that come out let's say in version one point zero when they do certain things and then the manufacturer goes back and improves it and comes out with version two point zero and version one point zero did not perform as they said it should have it's supposed to given that i never did according to your theory every airplane that ever had the g p got the weights on it was carrying a defective product because it would have given five seconds notice right and the five seconds notice would not have been sufficient right to say this point right so there is no causation the reason that finding respectfully judged the risk causation  because their intent is not just give any alarm any alert but not alert sufficient time to prevent a crash it didn't do that where's the causation then we're back to chief judge which question had this work he sacked lee as designed  it would have given five seconds notice which given the flight profile and how far they were below the ridgeline was too but but there are many other accidents though where ridge lines might have been different maybe this is why it saves so many lives all over the honeywell who said that yes this is what we represent to pilots that it's where where did they say that but when they were selling these units right that if you will it's a panacea it will work every time in any conditions where they say that well i'm afraid i can't point to that your honor i'm frankly but then i assume that they handed out specifications saying it will do exactly this well but they have great that's where the bartlett will handle honeywell issues appellate jurisdiction logically has to come first as the court said i will just add on the theme of the district court thought it was done one point that we did not put in our  brief mr wise never had sought an interlocutory appeal on the remained issue and in the district court's opinion granting summary judgment the district court said i'm denying that motion is moot because the district court was aware that all claims had been decided and now he had a final judgment from which he could appeal so that's going to do tional issue finality in terms of count five as we explained in our brief honeywell did mention count five in its motion it did have a section of its briefs devoted to punit damages and and the kinds of arguments that mr wiser raises about different facts different theories things he said in his brief to this court none of that was raised to the district court all the all the district court received from m damages was you know i think the law of the i can apply here that you let me amend my complaint so that illinois law could apply and that was it it was one paragraph it didn't go into any different facts or anything so i just report somewhat less so today mr wise never said that there's been been manipulation fraud collusion i want to speak to that because it may with the benefit of hindsight appear to mr wise never like it was some scheme and there must be collusion although he probably knows better at the time that the third party claims were made against a i say they say had been sued previously in missouri state court case they did not remove that case they challenged it on personal jurisdiction at the time a third party claims were made in this case defense didn't know what they say they would do all they knew is that it was time to bring a say into the case and the reason it was time to bring a us into the case was that in two thousand not a a say had come up with an alternative design for the approach that the met all the parameters set by i c a o i k o and so now there's this issue of was the old approach defective and that's what the third party claims are about this is this business of who who furnished the maps and how you actually approached this whether you could there would a different way it was a complicated approach it was less than optimal in certain respects and the a t s be report goes into fairly granular detail about about those things but until two thousand and nine there was no determination that you could have a different route and it is it is by the way after two thousand and nine that everyone starts suing a a say it's not just the defendants in this case there is other litigation and those that's when the claims against as a start to come into the picture on the statute of limitations question i just ask you something that i find so curious that this case what is the illinois connection with this litigation  conspired illinois the original complaint included boeing and mr hire mr hire is as i understand it mr bartlett can correct me a customer service engineer for hamilton sinister and he has the terrible misfortune of living here i would be pleased with your well no it's not why this is why because mr wise and his sued him multiple times so that he has a home state defended and in all of those cases boeing has said this is fraudulent trolling through the only reason he's in here is that he is a home state defendant and boeing has also said in jefferson cases the only reason you're suing boeing is because boeing is a home state offended and you can you're not going as a parent right it's frequently is so low that even that type of claim and even the claim against poor mr hire whose credit rating is probably affected by getting sued and so many products liability suits that even those very meritless claims no claim against us at all it's only that it's on tightly and i will confess in writing the brief the standard is so low i did not know how much i should get into all the complexities of that clain there is a brief follow on it's a docket forty four it's actually fairly complicated to figure out what choice of law test to apply and then for the reasons just given there's no basis for applying illinois law and illinois has this very unusual contribution rule where it's two years and the clock starts running once you know that you could have an injury which might be the time of filing suit most contribution statutes run from when there's a judgment against you and and fact that's how the tweens and statute work so you're supposed to guess based on the plane this complaint whether somebody else should be brought in because they're all so their complaint is not about the design of the approach they're complaining actually doesn't point the finger they say in any respect and the n t s b report doesn't either their complaint is about the layout of the jefferson shorts so you  could have used different fonts you should have had the profile of putting the contours in color and so on yes and i see the contours in color but it's a chart doesn't have those either but yes you could you could do all these different things there is no allegation that the chart was inaccurate in any respect in fact that is an undisputed fact the chart was accurate but there are these issues that i mean we believe are pretty trivial regarding the chart and it is an undisputed fact as percent deviation yeah so if you that the chart is that supplemental appendix one and if you see the approach line come in and then there's a little white rectangle that is the runway and you can see that it's bent just a little bit which is to represent five degrees what h s b c said was well you could have had like a little notation that says five degrees so so that you know this five degrees off pure speculation whether something like that would would make a doesn't seem to have a whole lot to do with this accident actually none of it does none of it does and it is very unfortunate but but as the h s p recognized we will never know a big chunk of the report goes through different theories of sort of why did they lose situational awareness and if it doesn't it would sort of reject some of them like maybe they were trying to shoot through a hole in the clouds to get you know visibility but they don't know it's because there's no cockpit voice recorder there was no back and forth with the control tower in the last three minutes all they have is this flight data they know there were some turbulence that's it that's all they know and there's just no link and certainly and on this record where he has no facts and evidence no expert opinion and evidence that any of those things in the chart mattered or were causally linked and just to go back to the statute of limitations question and address one of the things that came up statute of limitations is an affirmative defense and yes i suppose you could have a case where it is so clear that it's untimely you know something that happened twenty years ago a hundred years ago be totally frivolous here and you say move to dismiss was fully briefed th denied that judge thingy treated that is really the end of the issue and in fact she denied this fragile jointer reman ocean which by the way was outside a thirty days she denied it without even getting a brief from defendants because she had already read all the briefing on the motion to dismiss on statute of limitations and she treated it as most courts do that if you can survive a motion to dismiss and it's clearly not project joy but then at that point as the case went on and e s a litigated against defendants on different things but they say eventually decided that it was going to stand back and see what happened i'm just i'm just guessing here i mean i don't actually know but they did stand back and defendants motions for summary judgment were decided that is a far better outcome for a a say than winning on statute of limitations because winning on a two year statute limitations in illinois does them very little good somewhere else in the world or it's a longer statute of limitations but having defendants win on liability against these plaintiffs that's a very good result for them and as a foreign sovereign under the after they get they are entitled to a federal form and they are entitled to their own  to get the federal judge to try and get the federal judgment that they want and by it's probably quite reasonable to assume they got that actually they got a judgment that they would have probably like a lot more than getting out on a motion to dismiss on statute of limitations so that it's those are their choices to make in their title to those choices under the statute it's not plaintiff's choice to make where they should be and how they should look at their case one last issue so why isn't it talked about how he wasn't allowed to cite evidence that have been put in the record and i just want to make clear what happened there when jefferson and honeywell put together their statement material facts they cite things that may have exhibits that support what they they didn't put in like the entire deposition transcript for someone to put in the relevant pages to support relies on that fact as stated as fifty six point one says is proper his argument is ok you cited that deposition i six point one and that is governed by an abuse of discretion standard and his briefing below our current i'm sorry his brief on appeal does not in any way contended with that standard or suggest that the district court abused its discretion  that things might also have had something to do it didn't seem to be below that but as i understand mr wiser he's saying well you know that's not the standard of proof in a in a federal court action it's a fifty one percent any way treat the a t s species contributing factor quantum as can grew into with the illinois tweet burden of proof the court was looking at the eighty s p report because it had excluded all of his opponents due to the local rule fifty six point one violation and a look to that report to see if there is anything in there that could help here and it the answer is it doesn't because as you just stated so clearly  show over says ford motor company in an in a case where you're bringing a design defect with complex products that are beyond the scope of lay persons knowledge you need expert testimony otherwise your case is  depends on speculation and that's six fifty nine after it five a day and we know that principle under the sun so let me let me ask you this as i understand this crash happens and then there's like a terrific fire right there's a great deal of damage that we know that the fire would have destroyed evidence that g d p tell us device was there or could have melted the flight voice recorder what do we know anything about why none of these things are found but there was a fuel fed fire and most of the wreckage was destroyed and so no g p s of us was recovered it is certainly and we should be able to tell it what the temperature of the fire was burning so we would be able to know whether it would survive that shouldn't be an issue open to debate or open to speculation if you say it is f temperature of the fire if they had been there i think given the fire it's i don't know the answer to that i don't know the answer what i would say is it is not unlike a cockpit voice recorder flight data recorder if it's not hard  pilot error case pilots that replying too fast too low a copilot wasn't indorse to fly this type of approach it was a high road environment the a t s be thought that even if the g p ws was on this aircraft that a alert would have likely been disregarded by the pilots not only because they weren't trained by their employer but also because of the inexperience of the copilot and the workload with this type of arnav approach so in this case there is just speculation because there is no expert testimony to establish that any of the products issued here were unreasonably dangerous or that they were a  any satisfactory chain of transactions for this list of ice from when it was first sold to the first airline you know that it seems like maybe it's some leasing company that bought it and then it went to the mexican another honeywell facility there is no record and plaintiffs have both admitted by operation of will fifty six point one and i believe also on page thirty two of the brief they say they don't object twenty of our statements there is no record of honeywell communicating with trans air or the initial purchaser era little raul and so that there is no evidence to suggest that there was any request upon e mail to explain the differences between e g p w s oran there so and it's the fact that it's on there enough to give honeywell some lengthy continuing duty to warn about order duty to me and maybe warn is interesting to work that duty to inform each customer first sale that's a very important point your honor because and i bring that out in my brief or try to at the time they sold this g p ws to the mexican operator it was obsolete they said it was obsolete they had a company directive that said do not sell this anymore and they sold it one year later that's very important so that gets the my version two point zero argument it's not that they they have a better product to come out and they have to go search on what are the tell me about a product that's not what i'm saying i'm saying at the time they sold this g p ws it was obsolete they said it was obsolete they said not to sell it and they sold it to this mexican operator but that's my point old wide recall on these things is there no but you can i mean stop selling you're implying that there should have no i mean no no longer i'm saying that when you tell your company don't sell it then don't sell it the reason why they told the company not to sell cars was obsolete and i think obsolete means they've recognized it's no good the more there is a version two point zero and you don't want to touch on something else to the district court did more than one occasion refer to the sixty six percent burden of proof that wasn't she the discourse could have just said yes we report found this or didn't find that instead she made a point of talking about contributing safety factor and what it is sixty six percent that's clearly not the burden of proof under illinois law and i think the district did that i think that you know we talk they talk about pilot error well you know the pilots were going too fast in descent to below the minimum safe altitude but that's where you have a cheapie ws it's called the last line of defense you don't need it when you're flying over the cornfields of iowa you need it when the pilots goof