a diversity in the amount of controversy the other is a more complicated claim for a declaration of rights under a recent plan that one seems to be a little further down the line in state court well it is your honor and we filed the supplemental brief saying that the least with respect to the discretionary aspect of the district court's judgment pardon me we're withdrawing that it is it is it sometimes justice delayed is justice denied but there's not much we can do about that the it's now in the court of appeals we think we should have had a federal court review a federal claim under arrest of but now that's in the state court system that's different though that i think then the lone claim some litigation son a lot of litigation as to what that meant one thing is clear though is that mr roden is under state court consent judgment in title to benefits under the resupply and the issue is what are they and who figures that out are accurate or inaccurate looks like fourteen million on one side and three hundred thousand on the other in line in the ballpark on those well you are at least as to the arista claim right now there's a state court judgment for fourteen million dollars plus interest on the arista client which as an aside is twice the amount that anybody else got i prefaced it by saying i'm not saying that's accurate that's just the numbers we have right now on the other side is this loan klein for how much three hundred thirty seven thousand five hundred blows the normal commercial world if one party is owed fourteen million the other says yeah but you owe me four hundred thousand you'd think they could find a way to get those numbers together well court claiming for repayment and the reason there hasn't is because again this is arises not as as a claim in the state court by the company this this whole state court proceeding arises out of wrongful discharge litigation which was settle in the state court including severance and options and so forth and at this late date if this case came to the district court in its present posture now we would say the district court was particular younger younger abstention we just think doesn't it doesn't ring true there's no there's no state interest here and repayment of this loan there's no there's no action here to enjoin the state court or have the state court do something that looks like a stick an injunction of state court proceedings there's there's nothing that would interfere indirectly or directly or indirectly with the state court proceedings all we have here is is that mr roden wants to assert  that that i don't know the money because the loan was forgiven he can he can raise that as an affirmative defense in state court and if it turns out that that judgment is final by the time this gets to the district court remember back to the district court been no effort in the state court to get the money which is to say if we win the case in state court if we win the case and state court was there we don't think was there a change in circumstances circumstances or on the relationship between the parties between the state court and the federal court were the circumstances in the federal court in relation to regarding the relationship of the parties and the  can also fire at the same time a congress dude or another student in the federal court well no your honor because because the the while the relation of the parties hasn't changed as if i and i maybe i normally what happens in interesting cases this court is where if there's a benefit claim you file a lawsuit for benefits under risk that's not what happened what he did do is file a motion for for implementation a second motion for implantation of the judge in the state court to which is in state court when one might think that ordinarily that would be a federal court and you've got a loan collection action which you would ordinarily think would process itself through state court being tried in federal court and one of them is in about the seventh inning and the other one is in about the bottom of the third and maybe even the bottom of the first since since the state court proceeding doesn't involve repayment of the loan it may be at the end of the matter i think it is this is a little bit kind of the cart before the horse in terms of the jurisdiction but we that's where we are if if if amerisource bergen prevails everything in the state court proceeding which is to say mr roden has been fully paid everything he's entitled to that will not resolve the claim for the long there is nothing in the state court proceeding there's no claim in the state court proceeding is that there's not a program in place is an employee benefit for executives of the company for giving these loans it it's made that finding that doesn't necessarily mean that mr brown owes the money we still have to prove that he borrowed the money and he still has a right to defend that he didn't have to pay it for other reasons but at the end of the day the state court will say yeah one of the benefits of his employment didn't include forgiveness of loans and indeed not only did  believe justify the dismissal of the complaint in federal court because the state court was the only court that was proper to resolve that particular issue and they all addressed each of those the equivalent of removal because a removal is simply the transfer of explosive jurisdiction over a controversy from the state court to the federal court is normally accomplished by the instead of doing what she did judge stop ler had simply stayed the federal proceeding until all issues were resolved in the state proceeding  would there come a time when all of the issues all of the disputes including whether this long should be retained it would be resolved well i stay would not have been appropriate for for several reasons the first of which is that when a case is removed transferred from state court federal court which is like that which in is exactly what they were doing here congress one of those limitations is that if there is an action pending in the state court for more than one year you can transfer that into the district court there's no jurisdictional subject matter station district court your action in state court seeks a declaration that with respect to that loan he's entitled to be treated like any other officer who had been of that of that program and that has some consequences in meaning your opponent any chance this can be resolved you're referring to the entire controversy there we had a mediation and it really has as it was not fruitful and we're very confident that we're going to keep what we've recovered twenty one  there really the there are three factors under middlesex that govern the course judgment the first is that there be ongoing state court proceedings there clearly has been there's no dispute that the proceedings were process really over in iraq or feldman i think that the state court entered a very very broad declaratory relief decree suffer this up to the state court to declare the meaning of that decree proceedings including determinations that are already been made in state court with respect to the law on are more than just the state court striking one of many defenses they indeed go to the heart of whether and how the should be repaid right and i think it's one learns in civil procedure want to one that one accord assumes jurisdiction over a controversy court because the current state court proceeding is not a claim for repayment well with respect to the lung if roden achieved complete victory that he's seeking there in those courts what would it mean if the state court with respect to the lone agreed with every single argument he was making what would and we would have to sue him to get paid the loan we could sue him in state court or we could sue him in federal court under versity we have chosen to sue him in federal court to get prepayment of along there is no lawsuit pending for