of the of the nature of the underlying case informative of the insufficiency of the evidence and theories on amount controversy that were being advanced by the defendants in the case and as a result of one after another unanimous in their remit and there is really no case to be found in presents that type of robust record of unanimity among different courts in regarding rules as being about as good as failing to support subject matter and exercise subject matter jurisdiction it's that although they are not binding the critical mass of district court decisions on these precise issues regarding the same from really that it is a complaint the same underlying cause of action the six defendants in the same at the end of the day that this records discretion to award attorneys fees is not it is not unfettered it's something that is bound by a very specific standard wanted and set by the supreme court in the martin case from two thousand and five and that is one of objective reasonable news as so under the circumstances object of reasonable ness and the clear and obvious invalidity of a notice of removal is not one that would require is not a standard that requires there to be a foreclosing decision or a supreme court precedent on point in controlling with respect to the issue there is a  and what are you going to do with the information so you're seeking information the objective of the of the information though is to ultimately seek recovery right which actually potentially it you told me to determine whether or not there is a viable claim for recovery against this particular defendant or alternatively against some of that the defendant has paid and that's something that's made clear in the complaint and really in subsequent in subsequent advancement in the in these cases very these consolidated appeals my clients are travelers and the northwind entities who are also cross appellants an award of attorney's fees to the prevailing party on a motion to remain must be denied if the removing party had an objective leave reasonable i would disagree with the proposition that they are novel but there is not a lot of case law i agree with that point however there are two recent relatively recent district court cases in the state of florida allowing the removal of such cases  then attorneys fees are inappropriate in the williams case the nd serve is you know may go in the th circuit and amgen in the th circuit those are all reversed awards of attorneys fees in situations like this where there was no controlling precedent saying there was there was no remove ability so in fact had there been an award of attorney's fees in this case we submit it would be a to have been an abuse of discretion but clearly here while we don't agree with the district court's decision to remain and the decision to deny attorney's fees was entirely appropriate and to the extent i think it question was asked of my colleague whether four different district judges who seven orders or on appeal all abused their discretion they absolutely did not let me clarify something about the timeline which my which my colleague suggested on exhibit a to the hour of hell and three we list all the cases from florida district courts which have decided these issues and that exhibit a shows chronologically that travelers my client was the st to remove one of these cases on february th two thousand and nineteen at that time seven bills  cases had been remanded none of those seven involved in for sure or is no false claims or the specific kind of liability that alleged here the st or all remanded for lack of a federal question not for diversity which we have here and the next ones remanded because there was no proof of diversity of citizenship also not an issue here we were the very st case to put these specific facts before the district court and ask the district court to find subject matter jurisdiction here i would ask the court to consider the facts of the specific complaint that are alleged here which are glossed over by my opponent and his common paragraph four of the complaint in this case does medicated rowley's accident related expenses should have been paid in the st instance by defendant defendants are liable rd party there is no question that the complaints in this case allege that the defendants my clients are liable though the option that the district court had was how much how much is the amount in controversy there was no dispute as to diversity liability was asserted and the only thing for the district court to answer was how much is at issue now what we have here is an instance of artful pleading that plaintiff i submit is trying to a little bit sleight of hand the court plaintiff says we're liable they say they know from the partment of motor vehicle crash reports that there are a number of claims for which were liable or yet they don't tell the court how many there are and so the court is left to guess and the defendants  left to put the evidence before the court of how much the defendants are allegedly liable for and we know from a two thousand and eleven report from the florida the office of insurance regulation that the defendants are liable for more than ten thousand dollars per case we know that and that's a government report that's exactly the kind of evidence that this court said weinberger versus respect track the truly i'm that the district court considered to consider in determining the amount of controversy the sister circuits agree crossed the from the th circuit stuart from the st circuit the court is allowed to look at other cases to figure out whether and how much the amount of controversy is that's what the court did in bunts berger which is a florida district court case involving the removal of a bill of discovery the district court in bucks berger that sound diversity jurisdiction because the plaintiff's lawyer in that a whole bunch of other cases in which he had claimed over seventy five thousand dollars based on the same kind of injury all we're doing is the same thing that those courts have done in those cases into district these cases are worth ten thousand dollars each because that's a statutory maximum for the pip insurance policies and that's what they're seeking to recover here this is the court is supposed to apply judicial common sense that's what this court said in breaux versus michelin and not allow the cited including corporate management advisers from this court in ellensburg versus martin motors from the th circuit says and explains that when you do not adequately  allege amount of controversy or diversity of citizenship that is a remained for a procedural defect let's assume that that's correct let's assume you're right about that how are these remain and soon spontaneous my understanding of the plaintiff filed  motions to remain within thirty days of removal they they they did but the motions for emad were based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction which is the concept we started off for the that bills of this government per se are not removable in fact that's what the case is that they relied on said they originally took the position which they have apparently backed away from a little bit on this appeal as a matter of law bills of discovery bills of equity are not removable and respectfully we've shown that's incorrect but that would be basis for their motion you're saying so you're saying if i look through the motions to remain and found by the plaintiff and i haven't looked at it yet but if i look through and i'm not going to find them saying that the amount in controversy is not seventy five thousand dollars now with what you will find a discussion of the amount of controversy and what you will find that they argued is that the amount of controversy can never be met in a billet discovery case where there is no demand for a specific amount at issue and in fact there are appellate briefs there september th twenty one thousand brief but page five and and if you read judge maria knows remain orders in the travelers in north philly cases the words lack of subject matter jurisdiction never appeared out one time in the order it's all about the procedural the i'll tell you i i  appreciate the lawyering that's going on on both sides of this case but i do feel like that argument is slicing thing just a little bit then and here's my concern and i just want you to address this concern when the plaintiff has filed a timely motion to remind and then the district court remain hands i granted that motion right not by shoe a sponsor doing something just by granting the motion to remain that has been filed in a timely manner it seems very odd for us to read into that and slice very thinly these are the arguments that the plaintiff made and these are the things that the district court said it's a wonder it seems like a better world for us just to say when a timely motion was filed  when the district work grants the motion and remains and doesn't say something crazy she was on tape that we don't have jurisdiction what do you think about that i think the power x court from the supreme court said you're not supposed to look behind the district court's order  the plaintiff is correct i'm granting a motion to remain and then the stuff that follows after is some explanation but ultimately the motion to remain was granted absolutely it can't can't can't can't concede that point can't dispute that point i think that you have not that you would have argument is there it is appellate jurisdiction here because the motion was made on the basis that the federal courts don't ever have diversity jurisdiction over a bill of discovery that is clearly wrong  federal courts have had jurisdiction over bills of discovery since the diversity statute was created and we showed that on page one thousand and twenty of our reply briefs there are circuit court cases from the early one thousand hundreds of dressing bills of discovery  there is an arguable basis for object to believe reasonable basis removal and we submit that there is in this case because what we have is example the case of our full pleading in which they've just neglected to identify the number of claims for which they say we are liable we think we have made a reasonable basis for showing those number of claims that ten thousand dollars each in the district court disagreed i don't think it's fair to say our removal was objectively unreasonable in the circumstance this is not a case like taylor b newman g or hansard these four sites on which the play is relied on which this court affirmed the attorneys the initial of those cases the removal was done out of time or to avoid an upcoming hearing or without even researching the pla s diversity of citizenship none of those factors are present here none of the district courts found that removal was objective leon reasonable and made a suggestion that there were dozens and dozens of cases rejecting the precise decision from this court and really answers the the issue on both points in south florida wellness the complaint sought no monetary damages that was the glare atory judgment act and in that declaratory judgment act the plaintiff wanted a declaration that certainly language an insurance policies issued by all state did not clearly enough unambiguously limit the payments that would be owed under those policies no money was claimed