arising under the laws of the united states for purposes of federal question jurisdiction here the district court erred by ignoring important federal issues requiring it to determine whether the f and the c p g apply and how therapeutic pet food fit into the regulatory scheme and instead concluded that simply because the plaintiffs allege defendants violate the f all that is left for a court to do here is to determine whether they will allege prescription requirement is deceptive the district court importantly also erred by not considering it all plaintiffs request for a declaration that defendants are violating federal law and not addressing the plaintiff's request or of coord looking injunction requiring defendants to comply with federal be considered on its own as an efficient to support arising under federal question subject matter jurisdiction in this case based on supreme court authority the grable gun factors and a circuit federal arising under authority in headquarters and county of st charles where the relief on which federal question jurisdiction was based went slowly in the proper relief arising under jurisdiction exists for plaintiff state law claims federal jurisdiction lies here over state law claims under grable in gun it one the federal issue is necessarily raised to actually disputed three substantial and are capable of resolution in federal court without disrupting the federal state balance approved by congress this case is one of the narrow group of cases that fall into what the grable gun factors allowed to be that request arising under federal question jurisdiction cases here the prayer for relief sums up numerous allegations in the complaint that require addressing federal question federal issues the prayer for leaf request the court enter orders and judgment as follows quote is stopping defendants from denying prescription pet food is a drug that's in the joint appendix a page sixty eight dollars paragraph one hundred and thirty eight dollars from the properly quote the plaintiffs seek to enjoin defendants to comply with all federal and missouri and then skipping provisions political to the manufacture of such drugs close quote joint appendix those violations of law contrary to the what the plaintiffs now argue in retrospect a fair reading of the complaint in total is that the violations of law that they seek to enjoin include and those violations of law are the many federal issues raised in the complaint then when we when we go to the complaint itself the and the allegations in the complaint leading up to those prayer for relief we see that this is all about federal questions your honour's can just look starting at the st page of the complaint paragraph to basically tells a story where it's clear the plaintiffs are seeking relief for violations of ledge and there's a quote from the complaint quote legally required or allowed to be sold by prescription that's the joint appendix page thirty four paragraph forty one the plaintiffs also raised this federal issue whether defendant quote from quote we're clearly not in compliance with conditions fifty six and seven of the draft c p g close quote that's joint appendix forty one paragraph sixty three of the complaint the seek an answer to this federal issue whether defendant quote despite the publication of the final c p g moving further in the sentence have complied with neither the answer to this race this federal issue whether quote are three manufacturers violated the draft c p g and the f t c a close quote that's join appendix forty eight dollars paragraphs seventy fo all of the federal issues raised in the complaint can't be cast aside as plus or anticipating a federal preemption defense or one of the answers that they raise for the st time in their appellant brief these are core to deciding this a state law claims that i know i don't really see that until i get to the prayer for relief i'm not a number of those questions regarding steak you you you you were advertising creates the impression with consumers that a prescription is required and that's not true and that's the that's the deceptive incentive to to to to encourage you know encourage overpraising i don't see that that whether that's true or not it sure it's a federal question but i don't that the defendants products are required to comply with the f t c a and a c p g and that the products don't comply and as a result consumers have been misled or excuse me when this requires a prescription that they prove that it was never submitted for review by the f d a that it could by definition of never had a requirement for a prescription and that would just be enough and you would have to prove any complaint they filed the complaint they filed requires the court to address all of these federal issues to reach the ultimate state law issue that your honor race and dow the the issue was just that the state law you know this is a state law deception claim but the issue had to do with private with you know of commonplace personal injury case was regulating the product in merrill dow had gone through f d a compliance there was no question that the product had to go through approval process and then whether the and the issue was whether the defendant had not made a disclosure in addition to what they thought they were required to disclose here that the initial threshold question is is whether the f d a and the c p g even applied in these products and if it does if they do how here the defendant is the exact opposite of merit doubt the defendants are being accused of saying giving too much disclosure doesn't the isn't the f t s in action pretty a pretty strong because we have an eye to be doing something about that's my point while it is essential to have a federal court look at this because an entire industry is operating based on an understanding that the plaintiffs are challenging and in missouri and complying with them and my you know i think to get to the ultimate m b a m preemption here like we did do in the medical device regime correct your honor we are not arguing preemption we have not purposes here today the answer to your honor's question yes that's a merits question and the answer to that is question is all at this point and your honor should be thinking about today is whether that prayer for relief is a basis for rising under federal right to really necessarily depends on resolution of the substantial question of federal iraq and the two key words there are necessarily insubstantial letters to me it seems to me that's the way you've played it  that is reinforcing the allegations that this was dry no action and not independent action because they continued if they continue doing this and risking f doesn't create a federal jurisdiction and also in the nd part of the case is that they did it collectively that they did it by agreement on that this was that this was done from seven to appre furthermore they say a general rule of exercising federal jurisdiction over state claims resting on federal mislabeling and other statutory violations  enormous shift of traditionally state cases into federal court they have they have cited north florida for this kind of case to be in federal court on the cases they cite are primarily devices cases where there are issues of pretty preemption even older not discuss you know that in great britain the court makes reference read let me read you a passage from grable i know you from earlier with the government says a direct interest in the availability of a federal form to vindicate its own administrative act and meant by your my premises correct the injunction you want is directly implicated well what i just read now yours of what you want to talk about the other half of your remedy and say i can you know that i should showing that they were under threat they had to make a decision about what to do and that nobody individually would have chosen to continue but when they were are inside the tent and basically when  is there a battle time and two minutes honor i would like to respond to some of the points raised by counsel first of all the statement that there is no authority that the prayer for relief is sufficient to invoke arising under federal question jurisdiction is not correct interpretation the use of under what whether after parental consent or without parental consent title ten funds were available so that's an th circuit case it's kosky cited in the brief from the nd circuit is another case where the prayer circuit there are several district court opinions similarly finding that the prayer for relief provides a sufficient basis for a rising under federal question jurisdiction including star from the district of minnesota  this case your honor is exactly as judge local said it an ambiguous and complex case of federal law and as your honour's accurately pointed out this is exactly the kind of case that gray bowl and across the federal courts and as the supreme court noted the federal courts are uniquely positioned to provide that consistency on the federal issues here that are essential for this two billion dollars industry federal issues and law are at the crux of all of the claims alleged in the complaint not just the any trust claim and that you know your time is up one last question and you know of any case law