first chavez v j p morgan came out this year the ninth circuit issued a decision which said you might in control of a city includes a court in converses all relief order that's opposing counsel's argument why is that wrong you want to because we're not asking you to tell the district court to take jurisdiction that's not the question the question is whether the district called it in determining the jurisdiction remand order which is what happened and the general rule is that everything that happened in state court is and binding on the federal court or take or accepted by the federal courts object to reconsideration and and take the case up where the state court lifted off your honor that would ignore the fact that the ramond motion which occurred in december of twenty seventeen once that's vacated and is void then the state court didn't actually also like to move on because i don't want to get tied down in this one issue because with the effective relief we are seeking is that the first reminder order was correct sorry the first removal was proper out at the time that it was made in october as we know removal statutes have timing issues the second removal is going to be no doubt disputed sorry other side is opposing counsel disputing they have radio applies here that because of a change in remonde the second removal and the challenge to the second remove all could be different on timing grounds alone as well as on whether a second removalist proper in these circumstances have they argue that ray i easily over five million dollars and jurisdiction was proper and correct as of october last year and so if you deny this appeal is moot a very possible scenario is that plaintiffs moved to remind the second argument well you're asking me to speculate on the other side's arguments challenging our removal we believe in second oh really now that it's a strong argument or not no we believe the second removal is proper but the fact that the second removal is open to you know if you take a scenario where someone's got to move removed within thirty days of the complaint being filed if that was the snoring we'd removed on day twenty nine and now we're arguing about well you've removed a second removal and under a rock that's appropriate even though it's after the thirty days that would be our argument that first removal wouldn't be open to any dispute that it was within thirty days of the receipt of the complaint and we have the same situation here where frankly it's a slam dunk that we a within thirty days of receiving a mediation brief which was a paper putting us on notice that the case with had more than five million dollars in control of the city so now the second removal came after those thirty days from receiving the mediation brief it's very conceivable that one argument is that the second removal came too late because it didn't come within thirty days we don't know of any strong argument to that effect nothing less percentage you're speculating basically that there could be an argument somewhere out there because right now seems to be directly on for the same issues if it's uphill not upheld for the same issues which are presently before us that would be a problem but if there are other issues which are overriding of this particular issue that you shouldn't have it here but that nobody argued even in the first appeal why is that a concern to me because jurisdiction is determined at the time of the removal and so if jurisdiction was proper as of october  facts on is different removal with different timings and if an appeal is not moot merely because it might become moot soon and so this appeal isn't moot unless and until that remand order right now we can't give  relief that's my concern because you're already in district court and so i know you're arguing collateral consequences but we're not allowed to rely on those unless there's something more than speculative you're  asking for you to rule that we should be in district court we're asking you for for a ruling that the first removal when the district court considered it should have included in the amount in control of a see the future cheney speech the future damages that's the ruling because if we rule if you make that order then the outcome is that we're in federal court but we're not asking for an order that we should be in federal court we're asking for an order reversing the ramond order it's very sad it's a different request we're not asking for the outcome we're asking for the order that the first removal was proper or in more specifically a reversal of the reminder but if that doesn't do anything then we're not giving you relief in other words  if our ruling on that issue doesn't have any effect in the real world where were required to say it's not and i think you just hit the nail on the head that it does give us affective relief because the effect of relief is we're now not going to have to oppose the second remind motion about a second removal and appeal that if they don't it doesn't go in our way and it would avoid all of that concrete judicial efficiency in resolving the issue which we all know we should be in federal court but it worries me that the only thing that i have a fight in front of me in this particular issue is the amount of controversy if the amount of controversy is already decided in the cvs to meet be decided outside of me and you're already in federal court there's no way you're going to be thrown out of court for the amount of controversy that's already decided and all i'm going to decide if i hope you is that the amount of controversy is what other courts above me of already said and so i might get and try to figure out what i do more there is no way you're going to be thrown out of federal court on the amount of controversy your in federal court now yeah there's no way you're going to be thrown out on the amount of controversy and a possible outcome is that we will be thrown out on timeliness if you leave this to the second removal when we all know the first removal was proper and jurisdiction was created as of the time i notice i have two minutes and would like to reserve some time would be their argument the charges change the law right and that's that was the basis for the second removal order under the under our case which says you can you can bring it thirty days after the time runs because i've entered or saying get out of the district court go back to state court and so my question is if there's already been a rematch and order and that is gone has the thirty days gone or is it like your counsel said that they've they followed it within   i would like to argue that if i can but i do think the case is moot if you think they have a relief that they can seek in the district court they should seek that relief at the time it is going to be an issue might be with respect to their motion for or are potential motion for avoidable or the collateral consequences doctrine however you have to look at what could happen in the district court well would you be willing to enter into stipulation with him saying and why the change in law we believe there was proper jurisdiction the court was wrong with you going to do that which basis of the amount contraband the controversy and i wouldn't i wouldn't stipulate to that though you're saying the change in law would not affect your claims one bit they have brought their  motion or sorry they removed on two bases one is that the that the change in the law with in charge is affected the ability to add to the one controversy of the future attorneys fees and they're saying that they should be able to see future damages that the damage themselves exclusive of attorneys he's have exceeded now five million dollars and so that being said disagree with that they're saying that just based on the time that has passed even if you don't look at attorneys fees there's enough to get past the five million dollar threshold my position on that would be that if you look at the time the his was initially removed what was in a controversy at that time which which is chavez says is the amount at stake i don't dollars a year so if you took a snapshot of what the case is worth at removal when she's sixty nine years thirty thousand obviously that's going to put you over the seventy five thousand dollars limit here there is no such allegation that were what would have made her halt was nine years of front page at least that's what she wanted here there was no allegation that hey you know this case could last ten years so we want ten years of of continuing damages in this case it isn't it wasn't what we saw we don't know it's barred from asking a lot of times for specific damages you have to generally we're entitled it damages of whatever so when people removed our court they can't say what my specific damages  damages so how do you get around the house what's a defendant left to do by trying to get jurisdiction the federal court how do you quantify that absent what they did in java's where they had specific years of  damages well when did that come about and shop as it came out in a deposition how much remaking how much are you seeking she said i want to keep working here for nine or nine years so how do you do that discovery here with the same thing asking questions getting an expert involved and i say that sort of thing or for a lot of players from there to post saying i don't know i left it up my attorneys to decide what my damages are in charge this is different but there are a lot of those cases and that's what we see so how do you get around that i mean what are they left to do what they did and that is move to new well know what they did is they used the the settlement demand well in that that's what you're seeing all these cases now what was your settlement i didn't didn't see that par added all of the components of the demand which included rest period claim and it's interesting in this case two cases were mediated at the same time there was a joint demand made one of those cases had a rest period claim one didn't arson have a rest period claim so when we made the joint demand in mediation  included an amount for return for rest periods so the district court ignored the resprayed claim income it became a controversy but if you included it which was the original demand the case for the demand was over five point one million you take out the res just below five million and i would tell you to stipulate that you're not asking for more than five million because the opposing councils argument is that more time has passed and these categories additional unpaid wages overtime wages have accrued which seems reasonable and would you say you know that that's not going to be claimed so you would stipulate that if it's under five million i would simply add that at the time of re it was under five million but that's the problem because then they when you go back to state court they always cite or at near some recollections some of these cases that it's improper for counseling for stipulate you would not seek therefore i think you're walking a very very fine line as the time remove all we didn't suggest it was this he suggests yes it was based on some intervening cases and you want to go back to the court and  play this ping pong match about the first removal second removal back to stake or back here when in all likelihood what you're asking for by way of damages at the time of the second removal it exceeds a statutory amount right i have to evaluate the damages of fortune i'm not prepared to do that at the well i understand i'm ok you know that's a different issue i'm sorry now with respect to this issue i think it's a really interesting issue as to whether you use the twenty of the twenty five percent benchmark is used out of it when you have a common fund saddam and you know six million are coming fine turning twenty five percent that would be the benchmark in the answer so that's what we say that the defendant has to prove the amount by a preponderance of the evidence so presumably if it were and acted as your court the defendant would be the there would be obligation defendant to show what the attorney's fees were reasonable would be in this case what's what's reasonably at stake i've had cases last year i think cat had cases last ten years right when it would be up to the district court to decide that right you're at you're saying well it could be very speculative i oftentimes defense counsel has to prepare a report for in turns council or for their parents company to say i think we're going to incur this much from an attorney fees in this case to allow these insurance company to evaluate what a case is actually worth i think the same even if it were looking at bass attorney fees i think what they have to do is look at their own bills so this is how we staffed it this is how much we've incurred on the defense side and it's reasonable to assume that the plaintiff who has done this much work in comparison to us has views that are in the ballpark of ours otherwise they can't look at my bills i don't know how they're going to determine that i think substantial evidence or to meet their burden i think that all they'd have to do is establish what would be reasonable and reasonableness be would be what they've incurred what they in what they think they will be incurred in the course of th case it would be fascinating i think to see a defense counsel actually present that information to the court which could then be used for future few applications by plaintiff's counsel its its efficient cycle i guess true but don't you have to project that out into if the case ultimately goes to trial the end result you can say well that settles here be only twenty percent of that or ten percent you have to figure how much it's going to cost when you go to your client and say here's what it's going to cost you by the way we go all the way through trial and and that's isn't that one of the criticisms in the class action suit where they say the attorneys get all the money in there and the the actual plaintiffs get you know certificates of a movie stubs in this  not the other thing to settle the case hopefully not my case well i know i'm just using exaggerate example of course you might expect will both smiley so the point is that's the issue and so the fees are recently in these types of cases you'll notice that most of the time when there's a sizable settlement the the question is whether how much of a multiplier to put on the fees that have been incurred in order to get close to that twenty five percent benchmark and those vents does multiply as range from two to eight i thought multiplies of eight and some of my cases where i got the twenty five percent or maybe twenty percent with an eight times multiplier in my actual fees i think what you'll see is that the actual fee to if there is any effective relief you can grant us the case is not moot my opponent has a heavy burden to sure that it is in fact moot you've heard him say that he's going to challenge the rimando it is all our second removal  various different ways and effective relief is to hold that the first removal was proper and to vacate that rimando it and then we're done and that's going to save judicial efficiency both of the district court level and in the ninth circuit in terms of the motion for reconsideration of course once we're out of district court and we were back in state court when we were lost the ability to file a motion for reconsideration with the federal court and indeed at the time that chavez came out usually say within a reasonable amount of time and the third we haven't even had thirty days run from when we filed our second removal is what is at stake what is at stake in the litigation not what might happen tomorrow if we settle and the wages are a very thin example of this if we if we fire an employee and the very next day they file the lawsuit then arguably at that time they may have one day's lost wages and what that what plaintiff's counsel argues here is that as long as i don't say i'm claiming nine years damages then you know you can remove and we know the standard fire cases that you can plead around removal