drafted in brief this matter as though it were an issue involving the wrongful dismissal of the second claim for a leaf in the third of many complaint that is the plaintiff's seal or a claim then struck me it's on  the defendant this matter had said that the plane of had article three standing when it removed pursuant to kaffir and argued there was an article three standing when  when she suffered damage yes she did she bought the product she relied upon it i believe she states at great length in our reply brief about three pages worth of her alliance which that you want to adjudicate this case based upon the fact that because your client received a refund before the case was removed there was no standing and basically we ought not to be considering this case at all you don't want to consider the fact that she no longer she didn't have diabetes that she stopped she didn't stop taking the medicine five months before and all that sort of thing you don't want to consider anything or none that's relevant cling she bought a worthless quack product whether she had personal injury suffered from it or not she suffered economic injury when she bought a product that was worthless and she took it since she became ill that issue the sole issue before this court irrespective of any efforts to yell i did is whether or not the court properly dismissed that claim rather than remanding it to the state court it occurred this morning that of course there was never article three jurisdiction therefore it shouldn't have been in the i view waive that verb fair enough for years now and it was removed to federal court under count the reasons know that there is no dispute whatsoever as to the propriety of that removal and once that case was from move t received her money back prior to the initial lawsuit bring being brought in state court yes in fact she and that's article three article three injury in fact that she alleges based on physical harm that she she suffered the claims were and she was in federal court presumably she would amend to serve federal claims to the expense she was in federal court she served federal direction based on the fact that she had no damage correct your honor she had no she had neither article three jurisdiction she'd not have article three jurisdiction because as the as the other you didn't seek federal correct or are they can be raised at any time the fact that whatever she did once you got her into federal court doesn't waive it in the other words if we had spotted an appeal without anybody raising that we would have to say you know under article three standards of federal district court didn't because it wasn't a federal question correct your honor ms polo asserted from the get go and throughout think throughout the course of the proceedings that she had suffered physical harm such to give rise to article three standing let me let me explore that because  s my colleague is correct about the three standing but if i understood the posing counsel he said that she didn't have to suffer peculiar area damage she could suffer other types of damage i gather you're saying  right that's what she alleged she had that from the get go that never changed so there was article three standing because she had in fact suffered damages not begin your damages career although there was jurisdiction because there was live high on damages correct there continued to be jurisdiction right now in the district court had its ability to move forward is that right correct your honor and in fact the refund is simply simply not not particularly relevant in this case if we look at the order and we look at the record page seven the judge found that plaintiff's elevations that she suffers from diabetes and stop taking prescription diabetes medicine instead took d of stevia as a substitute are together the facts will predicate if each and every one of plaintiffs claims that includes the c l r a claim and if the judge further found that on his pull his own admissions under oath she did not have diabetes and it not was never taking a certainly in five months prior to seeing the advertisement at the time the case was removed the fact that she'd been paid the money back doesn't matter correctly she claimed that she'd suffered damage correct she continued to make that assertion print out the litigation correct when the district judge found that she didn't major aspects of the complaint were false and she's right it's not because nation could question he then dismissed the state action correct so that doesn't go though does it to the jurisdiction was it was fully adjudicated the judgment was entered on those on those facts and even under meyer there is a requirement under the c r a that there be harm and causality both of which the court established did not exist in this what you thought it was the main thing here she could prove that for purposes of state damage measure that she had standing particularly under bart meyer causality that could be established and that is exactly what the district court found they don't qualify under my or poor she does of because she didn't have any damage correct or are she if you didn't have diabetes she'd misrepresented the fact that she had diabetes but lack of damages again and i would also i think i should mention that i mean this case were the land that's what i don't understand her theory is that she went ahead and bought a misrepresented product correct ok it was a phony product from her allegations she bought it she detrimental elide by partying with money  she sued for the miss or a presentation on her own b have and be half of the half of a class so are you saying that there was under though why did she buy the medication i can't i can't answer that question i can answer the fact i can answer it but that any sort of reliance would not necessarily be would not be reasonable i should also mention underpass even if this were to be reminded to state court cathal would still apply we're still in a context in which we we have diversity jurisdiction we have in excess of one hundred defendants and we have an excess of five million dollars reasonably alleged california courts are recognize relax standing upright never got into the relaxed any requirement and of course under we shouldn't be arguing whether or not she has california state jurisdiction under the see a lawyer for the first time here the court made no such finding