exceeds the amount satisfies the amount of controversy a requirement so far as i can tell there are three thousand dollars of damages you might have suffered three thousand dollars of damages that had to be paid at the end there was a fourteen hundred dollars field paid the organization but i don't see where you get over the line for the amount controversy when this actually this issue was presented by judge ward in the district court and specifically request of the plaintiff the issue of whether or believe that they attorney's fees incurred and the prosecution of the arbitration below that was ultimately dismissed exceeded seventy five thousand dollars as well as costs related to document production as well as attention of part of the amount of controversy because we believe that we had to act action because we believe that we would not have incurred those expenses or and had done that if that dinner had not breached its contract with us with respect  to administering the average ration went but i'll always be true i mean what if you go to court because you have a breach of contract claim you don't get to recover attorney's damages attorney's it is in that context even if you win well it's not necessarily tourne the prosecution of the claim against fin a rather it's the it's a more of a consequential damages arising out of the breach of the contract in the form of fees that we incurred that we would not have had they had lived up to their excess on their part of the bargain yes that's right but that goes back to the basic contract why it does i mean the entire i will say this the entire case arises out of a breach of contract action and then a declaratory action on a breach of contract action which was count two of the complaint particularly in the seventh circuit with respect to whether or not the extent to which little munity applies to sponsoring organizations and i think what we have to look at in this case is that finra is not an arbitrator in this situation  wasn't a decision maker in the world wasn't in the capacity as some courts of compared to as a jury or a judge then it was an administrator of the arbitration itself we also have to acknowledge that this case involves a private  arbitration meaning it wasn't derived based upon statute or required based upon statute it was pursuant to a contract and ultimately the parties entered into a contract with finra for promise to do certain things and it is our position and based upon the allegations of the complaint that they didn't fulfill their promises the question then is whether or not the complaint as alleged by the plaintiffs in the court below sufficiently stated a cause of action that takes it outside of what we will call the administration of the arbitration process and we believe it does for two reasons we believe that the contract itself requires them to do certain things that are outside and apart from the arbitration process the second is that there's a specific allegation in the complain in the decision making process of the arbitration itself and we believe we did they did that and we specifically allege that they did that in two forms one by interfering with the discretion of the arbitrator's themselves as well as imposing certain interpretations of the rules under finra upon the arbitrator's during the course of the arbitration proceeding that is not an administration process that is not part of the article process because they are real processes we administer arbitrator's decide and in fact in the are specifically says the interpretation of the rules are left solely to the arbitrator and the interpretation of what to do in the discretion is only left to the arbitrator's and the minute that finra imposes those what i'll call interpretations those decisions on the arbitrator's they are then interfering and we do not get the benefit of our bargain of having an impartial arbitrator and fact unlike many cases where you can challenge an arbitration award we can't challenge in that  decision because they've interfered and so one of the issues also presented in the case is that there is no order here the claim was withdrawn no decision was made because it became apparent on the face that finra was not filling its obligations and it was interfering with the arbitration and so under those circumstances we believed that the best course was to proceed an action against finra i think the primary question that is raised by this appeal is whether or not the complaint as stated has a cause of action or has at least inference is to a cause of action the state a breach of contract and that those that conduct is outside the administration process of controversy exceeded seventy five thousand and that it included amounts paid for owed to fender as well as attorneys incurred this case had gone on for two and a half years before they withdrew the case i think that damages attorneys fees maybe damages of the plaintiffs act if the defendant's actions caused the party to suffer damages in another case it's there is there is a way to do that and i think that's what happened here so i mean again i think there is the amount of controversy is not diversity is met as to federal question jurisdiction we believe there is although it wasn't necessary to reach it in this case because of the existence of diversity as a self regulating organization registered with the f for thirteen thirty when the supreme court has said and that means that you have to satisfy the great blind sense test saying that there is and necessary actually disputed in substantial federal aliment to this breach until this appeal of their case was attacking the rules that these rules are inadequate that these rules that have them as rules that have been approved by the f c c are inadequate and not just this case that i don't think it's a federal question that would have to be resolved inconsistency of the federal role as the sun provision of the securities and exchange act where they're just unfair that somehow that the other that these these rules don't comport with what's required under the under the exchange that so i mean again i think diversity i think that's clear in this case but i also think there is an argument or a good argument that there's federal question jurisdiction as well  this court held that an international medical group decision just exactly that and they sided with approval similar decisions from the first second fifth and eight circuits which were cited in our grief said no it's just about the what they said now is that they ignore this improper interference claim now that's you know again that's been waived out appeal because it wasn't right in the district the court barred the claim against any s d based on the unity because it was performing functions within the scope of the arbitration even if it carried out those functions improperly what the court said and a mad case the allegations included arbitration now finally if there was any substance to the so called interference claim it couldn't should have been raised in a court proceeding to vacate or confirm the award before the real parties between the real parties and interests the plaintiffs and their decision in that case where there was a hypothetical somehow gives a plaintiff set opening to pursue a breach of contract claim against them or that with otherwise be barred by immunity has no merit when the plaintiff international medical made the same argument this court might be stated because it would be entirely without reference to the arbitration on the other hand the court noted that the claimant international medical which concerned the propriety of going forward with the arbitration when a dispute medical again the are appropriate remedy is for the wrong party to initiate a claim against the real party in interest as the district court noted neither cottle nor international medical suggests the plaintiffs can avoid immunity by simply i think it's important to point out where to go with regard to the federal question jurisdiction as the defense doesn't feel it can gauge in private arbitration it should it shouldn't make the promises and the question before the court is do they have any obligations with allegations based upon conduct that occurred before they entered into the contract and their procedures and that ultimately a specific allegation in the complaint itself about interfering with the arbitrator's which they have admitted in their brief that that is wholly reserved for the arbitrator's discretion and or their decision making so those two components this is i described before and the question that before the court is was sufficient facts pled to raise those questions and we believe it was and we believe the court