district for the remainder of the case now we acknowledged in note at the outset that orders remain generally are not reviewable by this court however this case presents a unique set of circumstances that fall outside jurisdiction to hear this appeal it's also important to note at the beginning if there is no issue of subject matter jurisdiction that is before this court the senate district of alabama does have jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction over this case there is no issue as to the diversity of the parties at this point and both parties have agreed in their briefing that d the amount of controversy has been met therefore the case is proper in the southern district d of alabama and  decision it is the defendant's position that the plaintiff waived that argument because it was not raised within thirty days of the removal the removal in this case was taken on october th of twenty eight yes and that in that case is directly on point actually in that case just like here the plaintiff who initially piled a motion to remain that was based on subject matter jurisdiction grounds later after th arguments with the initial filing here that did not happen the initial filing only had subject matter jurisdiction grounds at that point if the thirty day point been according to the plain language of the statute those arguments are waived and well your honor i do think that's correct because the difference is in belches they the plaintiff didn't want to preserve procedural defect arguments here the plaintiff did not do that the statute says what it says and it says what it says for a reason and that is if those arguments have to be raised within thirty days of the notice removal because that wasn't done those arguments are waived at the thirty day more and therefore can be brought up later  please the court my name is holly bell and i represent a helping hand therapy the district courts order should be reversed in the district court should retain jurisdiction over this matter for two reasons st the plaintiff deliberately failed to disclose the actual amount controversy to prevent removal and secondly the defendants are made this case within thirty days of being able to st ascertain that the amount of controversy was satisfied  the plaintiffs a bag of tricks to overcome it additionally this course stated that are noted that the supreme court cautioned long ago that the federal courts should not sanction devices intended to prevent a removal to a federal court where one has the rights and should be equally vigilant to protect the right seat in federal court that is going to head there you are there are v statute creates a back exception to the one year removal requirement period and what that statute states is that the plaintiff in gauges and bad say when they deliberately fail to disclose that the actual amount in controversy to prevent removal and that's precisely the situation that we have here the district court properly concluded that the plaintiffs had been less than forthcoming about her damages  that the damages threshold had clearly been met since the filing of the complaint specifically what the plaintiffs told the defendants was that they did not know what their damages were and could not say if it was more or less than seventy five thousand dollars but post removal the plaintiff readily stated that the amount in controversy was more than seventy five thousand dollars but if at the time of removal and at the time of the filing of the complaint secondly based on it to tally the of the circumstances defendants removed in this case within thirty days of being able to st ascertain that the case was the amount controversy had in fact and satisfied the district court concluded that the triggering paper in this case were the plaintiff's responses to requests for admissions the defendants respectfully disagree with that however what the defend do agree with is the district court stating that those responses to requests for admission were not sufficient standing alone to establish the amount in controversy that if in at that point in time  deliberately and intentionally refused to limit her damages unfortunately the plaintiff also refused to provide that that that refusal in writing e mails went on responded to filed the plaintiff finally provided that other paper the plaintiff stated without to speak that the amount of controversy in fact had been satisfied that she readily admitted she was seeking more than seventy five thousand dollars then the position that the defendants were put in is when they were save their requests for admission responses it was not apparent at that time that they were able to establish their guard appraising back responder said the evidence said they had to push the plaintiffs as they would do in any other case that was not nearing the one year period of a maze and asked to get that other paper the plaintiffs simply refuse to do it the principles of fairness in this case warrants reversal to conclude that our removal was an timely based on the facts presented here would not only start to punish the defendant's rights hinting to pay in the very evidence that the court encourage it and require it to paying for removal but it would reward the plaintiffs for dodging jurisdictional questions until after it's too late to remain the plaintiff simply cannot be allowed to game the system say it's a literal reading and you know if it says you have to go straight by the margin the words are you know a motion must be filed in thirty days have been dealing with any other defect other than not arguments only motions a motion has to be filed within thirty days the bad coco court went so far as to say and i'm sure both of your honors know this that they say we don't want we  don't want to hear any suggestion that it deals with anything other than the palm of that motion and of course both of those cases all the cases in the th circuit i'm saying say if a motion is properly file timely case i've been practices practicing for several years and trying cases and the thing i came away with is the opposite of left what i came away with was gosh i need to file a motion to reman and always put you know untimely and used to cover my bases i mean i have to have a basis for it of course but i see it the other way it's like what did young knowns do wrong in this case i mean here's a litigator that the case is rocking along like normal i mean there was nothing abnormal about this if you look at the transcript in the pleadings and then all of a sudden here comes this in the month of september one month before  the deadline of one year here comes how this you know request for admissions we want you to agree to this to the hearing the moving the hearing date and let me parent that a cli say moving that hearing date and that of saying don't think it's five days before the deadline before they have to file a motion to remove or they passed a year that assume number one the judge is going to root for them which i admission i mean it's just like that would never work so i don't i don't follow john no one's one iota no fault line a for saying i'm not why would i want to do that in his mind he had answered interact or if he had sent the medical records there was no motion to compel it at that time it was only during that window of time thirty days back from when this motion for removal was file they file a motion to comp  i think this is a circus one hundred percent correct in their analysis i think the trial judge was in her analysis to me it's like ok to them the defendant say that tell and say well we can't have that because you could  with well no it's on a case by case basis and if a trial judge would have to balance those the federal district judge would balance the rights between the parties and and say well you yours is too it was less than a month from the time he filed his remaining twenty six days  the question of the word motion in the corporate managers case and you look at that what you know what does it mean anything pointed out in court's permission let me switch to that for just one second they have consistently pointed that the the again the plan the below has been just delay no purpose so they could get past a year was that was tr this case was going out owns a new manager station he was not concerned about any one year time table until the defendants if you look at what they did this in this bill of they don't do anything towards this one at best is an educated guess because as that case develops and as anybody who's tried cases knows it can turn and go to left field or right field north or south only any given witness and you don't know you know where value it's important to understand the context of what's happening here discovery the defendants were trying to get discovery out over the course of the year and the plaintiff in in  her sponsor has repeatedly said that there were they couldn't answer the question then suddenly once the case is removed it is they changed their argument completely is that yes it is worth more than seventy five thousand problem with that argument is between the time in which the plaintiff said i can't answer these questions i can't image whether or not how much the amount of controversy is and the time in which they said it was more than seventy five thousand dollars no discovery occurred the only thing that occurred in between was the fact that the case was from it that was it and the district court noted that as to the magistrate judge that the district court noted that and noted that it was worthy of condemnation that the actions of the plaintiff worthy of condemnation she noted that in order the player should not be rewarded for that sort of behavior because it is what is doing is allowing the point any point of to abuse the system and rewards them for not being forthcoming with discovery when they are the only ones who have the information that's necessary the mr prince also spoke to the idea that rule eleven would keep the parties intact and would control the waiver issue and also that the that the district court would have you could could determine what what the appropriate amount of time would be that would all be didn't already prescribe exactly what the time period is the the time period is thirty days set forth clearly in the statute the language of the statute has to mean something it has to mean that if you don't file it by that point if there is a waiver of the argument here no procedural defect argument was made within thirty days grant your point there is no motion that is based on a procedur circuit they are different and belches waiver was not even brought up as an issue also in villages there was a procedural defect that was met there was a motion to remain based on a perceived reality that we simply do not have that in this case in this case the plaintiff they able to raise a procedural defect argument within thirty days of the removal and as such that argument is way accordingly the decision of the district court