procedural history that you would think almost that it would be something more in order to decide it it would require some kind of deep and very involved examination and would almost fit better on the you know a law school exam question or something like that but what is really the essence of this case boils down to something quite simple and that is that when this particular case was decided to be sent to the dominican republic back from the district court quite a few years ago now the stipulation that was made and this was determined by the court in the lower in the district court that the stipulation that was made that did not include one of the parties corporate i said at that time if corporate office young was not a party to the stipulation then by default there was no such thing as a alternative adequate forum in the dominican republic at the time of the stipulation and that continues to this day where right now we don't have an adequate and never did have an adequate forum in the dominican republic and therefore it's our position that the district court was required to allow us to come back to court under our rule sixty motion and restart this case back from the beginning because it never had the actual adequate via a viable alternative for him that all of us understood at the time that the original stipulation was made because i would like to point out also that when that stipulation was made it was never pointed out to corporate assume it was not a party to that stipulation and i certainly understood that own was at that point in time so why did you buy this may i ask your question you don't dispute that you never served correct that is correct your honor and the reason was that as soon as we got into the court in the district or heard we had immediate motions filed and one of the primary the rest of their argument was in fact it was they were asking for it to be just missed on the form nine convenien and while that was pending and if we had to go to the dominican republic it we didn't need to in our opinion just serve at that point in time now because it was never pointed out at the time that the stipulation was may on wasn't it party that that stipulation we were never given the opportunity to then go ahead and get it served and it was quite confusing for those of us who were there at the time because mr untoward who had who was representing the other florida corporations had also made an appearance on behalf of corporate office young and he had never made a formal motion there never been a hearing and the court had never given him the opportunity to withdraw from that appearance so as someone who was there at the time and was participating on behalf of my clients it was it was quite easy to understand at the time the stipulation was made that was in fact a party the best lation and i can ask you a the dominican republic did not pursued a case against the florida corporations in the dominican republic and i again i'm no expert into mimicking republic law but my understanding from discussions with the dominican republic attorney was that he thought it was quite it corporate ice young was in fact the main entity it was the only entity that he was confident he could get jurisdiction over in the dominican republic and then at that point since was in florida there would be no way to enforce the judgment against a florida corporation whereas if he had judgment against the entity that was there in the dominican republic that would be the only entity that he as a dominican republic lawyer would be able to enforce any kind of a judgment on again i do not profess any particular expertise in dominican republic law all that all from him let me ask you a question forming on unions because you're the sort of period of your argument here is that it would only have been appropriate to dismiss this case on for convenience if all of the defendants had joined in the stipulation i guess my question is is that true  friend and because we never reached any we never got beyond the forum not being an issue we we didn't have to raise any kind of argument about that back in the dominican republic there was no way are my clients  n the dominican republic when you find the well but i guess i guess my point those it just seems and maybe i'm wrong about this but it just seems like your argument is that because the defendants would have had a successful statue of limitation defense against you that that necessarily means that there was no forum but that seems to kind of put the cart before the horse right the fact that the defendants would have won the lawsuit i mean does that  have being whether the person going back to the forum is able to actually have a rd and and heard on the merits as opposed to just a mere procedural jurisdictional or a another reason why the florida companies were not to and the dominican republic is that actually the lawyer in the dominican republic was quite concerned because you know he understood that situation that we were dealing  domestic corporation i mean do we have enough evidence to to be able to say that well again i am i am not admitted to practice in the dominican republic and i don't do not profess any particular expertise essentially constitutes a corporation in the united states and and how that might go back and forth and and really relate to this particular says you know and many can republic and shareholders i think like that it made it more in the context of a corporate and it's been a partnership or something like that and and they do have partnerships in the dominican republic as well and there imagine this entity whether you get into the various details or you want to argue about i small item about whether it's the same as a u s corporation or not is that it would only really have its citizenship in the dominican republic because we the minikin entity from how had a citizen step in puerto rico and that is clearly not the case because it was already dismissed out of puerto rico for not having minimum contact and border we are back in the st bit that  really either from of a functional equivalent or from that juridical existence and and for purposes of establishing diversity and being confident that there is in fact averse to the we have no question in our mind that we're dealing with an entity that is not brahma or rico and more and dealing with an entity that is not in a position to be you know if getting diversity in any way and and whether there is a the morning your honors please the court i represent the premier and cities in this case i would call the court's attention to page three of the appellant brief where they say the premier said i accept what she says but the premier defendants are the ones that waived statute of limitations the order that was entered by judge king ok which was back in two thousand and eight i believe your either case has the same case number but there are this is the nd appeal from from that case but the court referred to the motion that had been filed and the form one convenience decision was based upon that i don't understand why it is that they decided to sue corporate osteo in the dominican republic as opposed to premier premier was obviously doing business there that was the reason why they were sued in the st place so i guess the argument that i would make with a very simple argument is st that it was clear that the premier defendants are the ones that waived the statute of limitations that was the basis of senior judge king's decision to the form nine convenience motion for whatever reason based on i guess the advice they got from lawyers down there they sued the wrong party in the dominican republic and now what they're trying to do is fix it but the fix judge time wise there was a period where judge can was have a medical condition and as you know judge king has always carried a full caseload even though he's a senior judge but there was a period of time when he dropped down to about a half caseload as he was recovering from treatment and that kind of thing it may well have been that was during that period of time but i can't answer that question on it looks like it was that time period is now back up to full speed i believe so and then the rule sixty argument i don't understand they they seem to think that the ruling standard was applied they don't suggest what the right standard was or how it would have impacted  be the result but rule sixty does say that there's there is leeway given to the court to determine whether or not to grant a promotion there the fact of the matter is respectfully your honor is that they filed suit against the wrong parties in the dominican they do have a remedy judge but it's just not against my clients they have a limited and the the answer is not that you know a case that started in two thousand and five sh continued to be pursued against these clients because their lawyers picked the wrong form and picked the wrong party it's not our fault judge but there is a remedy shareholders to have a corporation it's only in the last couple of years that they've come up with things that are the equivalent of l l c reason that kind of thing so i agree with counsel that it's clearly a corporation as opposed to order and i take you agree that it doesn't matter what test we apply a functional test for the juridical test either way it's a corporation ye but do you have any comment on my question about before about formed on convenience and whether this stipulation to waive the statue of limitations was dispositive all that analysis well judge it's it's interesting because the fact of the matter is is that we stipulated that we would not waive with that we would not raise the statute of limitations with respect to the premier defendants which were the only ones that defended the case and had they brought the suit against judge recused himself and it was not there was never an issue i don't think that it was ever mentioned anything about a health concern or anything else he made a specific point that he felt like he needed to rec himself and the context of what had happened in the past though i i absolutely do not remember anything with respect to the health concern and apart when he recused himself and i went to the next but there was no further final dismissal and so it was understood at the time after we had the stipulation and with the facts of the dismissal of all of the defendant this was something that corporate us young was part of again the lawyer mr ons workshop had rep had appeared on behalf of corporate i found all of the discussions we understood were defendant plural there was never convenience applicable in the dominican republic because there is no viable alternative chloramine in the dominican republic without process you know an involved now in terms of the standard applied yes wide range of discretion and and understandably take into consideration as winnable aspects of what happened in the case and you can make a decision based on a variety of factors there and instead  whereas at the district court level what can happen is that the judge can take into consideration the standard such of what your honor had referenced previously things that are equitable considerations and here we have a republic when they were told that they had to and they have followed the advice of counsel in the dominican republic and this was there was there is no further remedied to that either by the way i am not i'm not aware of any particular remedy that can happen as was suggested and violently when you know they have done exactly what the court instructed them to do they when they got counsel in the dominican republic they filed a law suit in the dominican republic that attorney in the dominican republic made the determination about corporate asked young being the copper in his theory there again you know he he didn't know why the court in the dominican republic w s plaintiffs and u s corporations would have the florida corporations in that court in the dominican republic when you certainly wouldn't be able to uncork any judgment against them he could only enforce the judgment against corporate a young and of course at that point not have no reason to understand the proper wasn't a party to the stipulation and thus he was blindsided at the time when proper nice young came back and made the actual argument about the obtain a final judgment from the supreme court in the dominican republic and that final judgment has in fact dismissed the case with finality and so there are there is no remedy there is no bearing on my clients to go now if they are not allowed to proceed in a district court and there there are constitutional what patients here too because they have had such a deprivation of their rights to seek redress in the parts of the