i only have several points to make all of them are in the briefs but i want to put them a little more colloquially oral argument first and most important i think is that there's a pres  i remained in new york with my entire life i am now you have a new york state of mind exactly i got that part and that means exactly and i had even included in that state of mind until about two you know breaking up is hard to do and carol for his hit song so i'm moving i've always been a new yorker and i don't think that the district court gave sufficient credence or even bother to pay any attention to that presumption in fact for me and i think some judges underscored you know me know that the worst thing to call me would be a californian of southern california i'm just not one of those i've belong to the client and that's where the fees goes there's a case called mitchell versus vin a guess at the united states supreme court there's a very horrible case in the circuit the judge bybee wrote called poti versus right there's no evidence in the record that i did the work in california as everybody these days work is that i computers and here you have a i haven't had a residence in new york since may of two zero nine but i own real property there no i own no real property in california nor have i since one thousand nine hundred five i raised had a residence in new york continuously from december one thousand nine hundred forty four my birthday until may of two zero nine i don't have a residence there just now because i lost the residence and i'm saving up hoping to make some money and bush residence there i had a co operative apartment in lower manhattan until two zero zero nine from about nine hundred seventy eight of the evidence shows that i'm a new yorker and damas ciliary new york district court placed way too much weight on residence and on things that are a function of residence like voting which is not a function of begin with the pronouncements of the state's highest court which bind this court under california law i'm a new yorker and coincidentally under new york law i'm also with yorker on the story of the questions all those other things i think you and i thorough examination of the court's ruling on the diversity issue makes clear that the court looked at nine factors in coming to its conclusion that there was no diversity in this matter apologies to billy joel but i new york state of mind does not want to die style i'm sure you would find that mo residents is one of them the courts have made it clear that residence is one of the most important factors in determining domicile for the purposes of jurisdiction and the record in this court makes clear that at the time this lawsuit was filed in two thousand and fourteen without a doubt mr jackson's residence was in california but that wasn't the only thing that the court looked at in making its determination that there was a lack of diversity here the court looked at where mr yeah and worked where was he working in two thousand and fourteen when he filed this lawsuit he was remain is not looked at by itself anyone can say i don't have an intent to remain in california i'm going back to montana i'm going back to florida i'm going back to delaware and that's my job messiah for the purposes of diversity that's why the court take a look at other factors in coming to that determination and those five and let's change the fact that mr yagami and is now living working owns property owns a car has a driver's license in california i don't know it wasn't the same thing back in two th don't know that your honor the record does not show that you can ask your question did the district court make a finding of fact here yes i think a finding of law in fact and there what how do we review that the review is a clearly erroneous standard and under that standard it's very deferential to the court's findings those factual findings and i don't think that there's a clear error in this case which would be the only grounds for this court to overturn that finding by the just record i think this court in the end and the district judge ma factual determination which i recognize is probably a mixed question you're probably right but with a heavy dose of facts behind it yes your honor i think so but he did this on the on the affidavits or declarations that's correct  honor and requests for judicial notice of pleadings and other declarations that were filed another lawsuits both in state and federal court this wasn't done willy nilly the court took a look at all the factors and decided that those factors leaned most strongly to a fire did see this you know mr yang talked about it a presumption i guess when he was where he was born but we do have judge there's two reasons your honor first of all we don't have anything in this record to show what judge moore a took a look at when she made that determination will we average germination is as a factual finding or is as you said it's a mix question of fact no effect whatsoever it's the facts that existed at the time the lawsuit was filed and those facts point to a lack of the order in which they were made by the panel first judge burrs on pointed out that the this area of law is fuzzy and yes it is and it is because there is no controlling case in the ninth circuit the loop case in which judge old queen based this decision clearly says that it's not the law the ninth circuit it's the law of other circuits so in this case what some other circu lou says that the factors that it's sets forth or the law in other circuits never adopts that law on the circuit so at minimum this panel has an opportunity to write an opinion in this criterion or criteria criterion not criteria is the intent to remain i never had an intent to remain in new york i mean in california and in fact judge old queen had before him evidence that i if i don't get back there while i'm still alive if i own a burial plot there and i have a testamentary intent to be buried in new york where my parents are  buried i have both new york and california driver's licenses the only reason i have a california driver's license is because as was indicated in the brief i was forced to get one one faster be required by california law to happen only if you hear from one yes yes i have personal property that is housed on the real property that i own which i intend to develop and i've owned that property since one thousand nine hundred ninety that's about it a loss of any questions