ok thank you good morning your honour's i'm matthew clark i represent save the valley the appellant and i would like to reserve three or four minutes for my rebuttal ultimately this case concerns seventy five and three course acres of land that's in northern santa barbara county that piece of property as you've seen from the record has a long and nuanced history but i think the central issue for us to decide in this case has clear facts and clear law council as far as we got into this case it seems to me that it's more about jurisdiction than about anything else  what is it has we asked in our order what is it that was removed to federal court was it just the request to intervene because this is a case is gone away you know decades ago or is it somehow revived the whole case and brought it over there the removal remove the entire case along with our motion for leave to intervene so what landed in the district court was a case that was started in the late eighteenth hundreds how is that how is that possible since you weren't allowed to intervene in the case was long ago close to how is it that the entire action is even available to be women your honour's pointing out that that the district court denied our motion to intervene however our position is that the case was never properly removed how was it not properly removed because the trial occurred in this case in one thousand six and the united states represented even when you attempt to intervene in state court well it was it had resolved in judgment no continuing jurisdiction of the court to supervise an injunction or anything like that is correct your honor but even so you wouldn't have been able even possible i mean it's sort of if i went over to the courthouse and started looking through closed cases and found one that i thought had been poorly decided forty seven years ago why how is it that i can pull that off the shelf and say hey i'd like to have you guys take another look at this case what what part of civil procedure allows us to do that there is no prohibition against doing a motion to intervene into a case  here's my difficulty to respond to it it's the same question my colleagues are asking i think you did something very clever but really what you're doing is bringing a new suit against the united states and you're saying we have this dead lawsuit and by the way between the dead lawsuit and now we also have the catholic church getting property and it's and what you're really complaining about is what's happened since the lawsuit is over between the catholic church in the united states the then and what you're really you're complaining intervention says that yes and on so is why isn't this for all intents and purposes no matter what you call it a brand new proceeding and that's what got with yours which was completely i don't see it as a brand new proceeding at all because all we need to do is look at the look at the language in the judgment which which strictly prohibits what the what the tribe is doing on the property and we don't need to amplify that play not about the enforcement of the judgment you're complaining about actions that occurred at well after the judgments was entered between the catholic church and the united states are you not i am complaining about activity on the property since my late absolutely absolutely so you're not you're not you're complaining about what has occurred what occurred thirty or forty years after the judgment was entered fifty years nineteen years  what we're complaining about is in environmental impact statement that came out in two thousand and fourteen when you complete your complaining about events yet but but my point is the judgment runs with the land the judgment doesn't a correct play of the valley one we could not do what we wanted to do because of sovereign immunity on the behalf of the tribe and the united states government the tribe and the united states government exceeded to state jurisdiction in the in the earlier lawsuit and that is the great thing about this judgment is that well that your effort in say the valley one to effect some of the same relief that you are trying to get b intervening in this case yes your honor all right yeah so they and i understand you i understand your position here's my problem what you're complaining about is not the judgment you love the judgment you think the judgment is wonderful absolutely you're complaining that two parties later on one of whom is the catholic church and the other who is the united states somehow acted in contravention of the judgment that regs actually write your own you may whether or not you have rights to enforce that i gravely doubt but some court's going to tell you that some somewhere other than this one well maybe not maybe this one so my question is why in reality isn't this just a lawsuit against the catholic church in the u s government the cats that's i mean i know you keep trying to track it back to the original judgment but your point is that some time after that judgment was probably in two thousand and ten where the catholic church and the u s government acted badly and you think you have the ability to tell them they acted badly based on that judgment why isn't this essentially a new lawsuit because the judgment runs with the land he said that before yeah but in reality in reality isn't the catholic church an essential part of this no your honor the catholic church quit claimed its entire interest in the property to the united states and the united states is bound by the judgment and the united states has allowed the try to reside on the properly property and violate the terms of the judgment he said let me ask you a different question let's assume you're entirely right that you removed the entire action to federal court what do you peeling we're appealing the denial of our motion to remain and not available under it is because it terminated the case and you can look to the docket and the docket entry where it terminated the case then what terminated the case the d removed the district court didn't have jurisdiction and it's true every time a case is removed a district court we do not take an interlocutory appeal of a motion to remain correct that's right ok so you must be no i don't agree with that i think the right even if he doesn't agree well what i see is happening is that we don't waive jurisdictional arguments just because we brought in a way you don't waive it you have to litigate a case through to final judgment and then appeal the final judgment and so  if if you're in front of us you must be appealing a final judgment you can't be appealing to denial of motion or emad what was the final judgment of the district court the dismissal of the action is what it was when whether it was because the must have dismissed it because it denied your motion to intervene well they deny they because the court said i've got jurisdiction to consider this case i deny your motion to remand so therefore the court must also have denied your motion intervene correct well i agree the court denied both correct i thought that's the only thing that was before us because it seemed to me that the only thing that you could bring have appealed from the only thing that could have been removed w denial of the motion to intervene because the rest of the case was long dead but if your peers saying that you're not challenging that mile of that motion there's nothing left for us to do if the if this court believes that the remained motion should have been granted then the then this court can reverse that decision and remanded back to the district through that period we can't if you were not a part and what you've just told a spy saying no problem with not allowing us to intervene is that you're just an interested person standing around outside the courthouse wanting us to do something with a case you don't like and it seems to me that if the motion to intervene is not before a sane anyway then the given in this is that you're not a part of your clients are not a party period that would mean that no party who brings a motion to intervene can ever appeal you know you can appeal you  if you didn't raise the issue you just said you're not raising the issue so that's that's a waiver of any right that you may have had if you're choosing not to do it a party can always decide not to argue about something the district court did that doesn't mean nobody could say here's me phrases for you different if if the if the motion intervene is that is the final order that disposes of this case and it has to be a motion to remain and didn't dispose of the case then you can come problem our jurisdiction is limited to appeals from final judgments and i think you could appeal in a minute from the denial of motion or motion intervene at times probably past and maybe we should construe your notice of appeal which talks about the motion to remain something that we believe was should never have been reached so let me give you at me give you a hypothetical somebody just brings a case originally in district court they say there's diversity the defendant says there's no diversity there for the district court has no jurisdiction the district courts as i think you're wrong mr defendant i think there's diversity and now we'll go on and decide the case you cannot appeal under our case on the judge's order denying the dismissal you have to never appealed the final judgment in that case you can only appeal the interlocutory order it's it's no longer interlocutory when the case is ended because we have no ability to pursue it further i think we understand your position you good morning ma'am please the court and summary ingles here for the united states with me at counsel table as assistant u s attorney jessica today we ask this court to affirm the denial every man and i'd like to begin remarks today by shouldn't we  and second because even a favorable judgment would not give them the relief they request and i don't necessarily agree with if you read the complaint they want things that at least in part could potentially help their interests  notice of appeal from the denial of intervention you agree that would be a final order yes absolutely and they came up on appeal and they said in their briefs we don't want to talk about the merits of the denial of intervention because the court never had jurisdiction in the first place the remit the removal was inappropriate you agree we would have jurisdiction to consider that argument don't you yes yes actually what they've done here i mean they don't want to argue only appealed the denial arena and well that the result from your perspective would probably be the same if we said that this was in effect an appeal from the denial of intervention and therefore we have jurisdiction t but the only valid argument and they haven't they haven't made an argument as to why the denial of intervention was wrong so they've waived that argument and were done appeal for many rulings made by the judge except the jurisdictional one is the beginning nonetheless you can appeal the final judgment and attack the court's jurisdiction yes so here if they had really appealed the motion intervene they wouldn't have to argue about whether or not it was appropriately denied they could just make an argument that the court lacked your stiction that or it couldn't that they could do what they tried yes i understand your point your honor i think our position is that the failure to appeal the denial of intervention should prevent the court from being able to address that certainly we have not addressed the merits of that decision in our briefs but the point is that even if this court finds that it has a poet jurisdiction then i'll every man was never the last proper and here i'd like to make a quick entire action but the but the truth is that saying that we removed the entire action or removed the motion to intervene is really a matter of semantics the action was the action still pending no certainly not i think perhaps by saying remove the entire action our point was really that we're removing the current action which is save the valley's attempt to reopen a case that completely ended in one thousand nine hundred six and is no way related to the claims that they've raised or to the extent that they can be enforced can be enforced only by the united states would you think too liberally life into a did case just to kill it again it might not have been the best procedural move your honor but the point by saying that we would remove the entire action it was not an admission that the old action was still alive or that we were attempting to breathe breathe life into it it was only ever intended when you removed it to revive the case you would only want it to come the period because the case is dead right yes yes entirely and the case the federal participation in the state court in no way waived waive the federal government's right to remove this case are their participation was entirely in a different capacity and the claims raised in the proposed complaint in intervention are completely unrelated to the claims that realty gaited and the one nine hundred century quiet titles i take it what your your your capacity in this thirty eight now owns the land in fee simple right so your your capacity in this case is a few feet simple order of a lawyer yes your capacity in the last case was to the extent the united states was involved somehow as a trustee for the tribes it was a sort of intermediary between the tribe and you know the interests that you were defending whereas the interests of the tribe as opposed to the united states interests is the point is that at that time the united states was not involved in any capacity as a landowner it was merely as an intermediary or i represent i'm so i'm not sure why you're fighting why my question the united states was in that case in its capacity as somehow protector of the tribes interests that's entirely  if you have a little bit of time  thank you very much there's no doubt that the united states remove the entire action they went into storage and dug out the actual complaint in the case which is handwritten so that you i  honor so so they went out of their way to remove the and remove the entire action rather than just a piece of it so so let's assume the best possible world for you they remove the entire action why hundred hundred years later well again i disagree this is a new lawsuit ok why did they waive their right to object to your attempt to intervene one hundred years let me be the maybe the issue is was the united states in the same capacity now that it was intervention today as in the prior lawsuit so as i said before your complaining about things the united states does is doing as a landowner not as the protector of the india india i understand that and if you look at the the dynamics here the united states was being the protector of the native americans in one thousand no sex to this very day that's what their role is with respect to this tribe whether it'll be with respect to the tribe but not with respect to the acreage an issue they have a different they're in a different capacity because they now own the land that they didn't own then and it doesn't matter what their relationship to the charges anymore well i think it absolutely does depend on the relationship with the tribe because their position is that they hold this property in trust for the tribe and so that brings them back to being the protector of the tribe which is analogous to not assume their capacity as trustee you're suing them in their capacity as a land owner why you waited over ten years so that the development of the resort to even attempt to revive this i mean if we let you in wow wouldn't the fits of latches so we didn't wait ten years we wait but i think your honour's referring to is that they initially developed the property ten years ago however we learn aware of the judgment until we started digging into it when we saw the environmental impact statement about their new project which involved creating a hundred thirty foot building one quarter mile from a runway that's when we started getting serious about this and digging through the the files and find a way to get around the sovereign immunity issues which are significant hurdles here otherwise we can't do anything which is proven by the first case in closing i want to say that cases die but judgments that run with the land don't they stay with the land and we're not asking this court to decide whether we should be able to intervene we're asking the santa barbara court that question but it may be that the case was closed but the the judgment is recorded it appears on their title history reports it binds them and the land and our whole point here is to become interveners and enforce that judgment which appears on their