obviously the import of the statute his to notify an operator that there are d there's an unleased owner and that unleased owner is demanding the affidavit of costs and the revenue production sheets so that the the operator scuse me that the unleased owner can understand where his money is going in terms of the production and that is particularly true in this case given the fact that kelly was a one quarter interest owner unleased interest owner and these two sectional units and therefore obviously was known to to avon united b r and its on energy operating company from the beginning since they acquired those leases back in two thousand and thirteen operate now the statutes in question specifically and plainly provide that lead that the unleased owner must provide notice to the operator that there is some form of failure to provide or or respond to the provisions of the article and we think this is where the district court erred in granting summary judgment essentially the district court took the position and its order that the failure of these letters was directly attributed to the fact that there moreover there d are no cases either in federal courts or in this district courts of the state of louisiana republican or to say louisiana state court proceeding that indicates that there's a specific requirement that there be a citation to the specific somewhere in that area in terms of the forfeiture costs maybe so and that is one dollar of the three claims that we made in this case the other two claims made in this case involved the county it involved the payment of the interest for the revenue production on the well so it's there are three dollars prongs to the to the pleading that was filed and so the future costs only come into play to the extent that the operator cannot offset the amount of costs of the parada share of the costs involved in the wells production revenues and and i think that is one of the issues that is most significant to the to the way in which this case came in the way in which this case rose is that when we filed this lawsuit on behalf of b a kelly after the two demand letter said then sent the letter the three demand letters have been sent we filed this suit alleging all three of those claims but in quick paraded into the the the dim the demand letters for forfeiture is this jurisdiction and affect the subject matter jurisdiction of the district court so we did that and we also did that from a timing standpoint because the court indicated that there was no that it intended to dismissed with prejudice entirety of be a kelly's suit that is the assumption claim that is the forfeiture claim that that is the accounting claim and that is the revenue claim so we had no alternative back at the time but to were formed shopping we were simply faced with a situation in which the judge was going to dismiss our entire case those are his words not ours and we had no alternative but to bring that party into protet against the residue to crowd effect of the close affects of such a judgment that such a judgment would have for the rest of our case and what's more the judge did this in such a way respectfully did it in such way only gave us twenty one dollars days to file a brief despite the fact that we had depositions ongoing and scheduled at that time despite the fact that the discovery that the dispositive motion deadline had passed and we had no time to present the evidence on for example the issue of the j ws assignment and the assumption claim we never got the opportunity to present that in the said and when we file the smoke this this motion from there there was no scheduling order in effect there was no violation or post some billet filing that we found out about this about the true nature of the ownership sometime during the summer and we filed during summer of that same year and it was for then within four months post learning of the true nature of that  yos ownership of the leases that we filed our motion for leave and again in the aftermath of an indication by the court that there would be a full and final dismissal of the entirety of be a kelly's lawsuit which was which was something that we deal alternately the court did not district court did not do that the district court did not do that they saved those those two remaining claims and saved the claim on the j w something claim but we did not know that at the time we filed that so we at the time we were not in bad faith or or engaged in forum shopping when we did that we were simply protecting our rights as for the remaining claims of the case that's what the courts look at courting to the jurors pre decided to the court to rule nineteen analysis when you're talking about a dispenser indispensable party looks to faith looks to the in to spend on nature of that party and we think that we and have argued before the court and presented evidence on this point that we can't get full relief on this j w assumption mistakingly it turned out later through later discover we learned that it was in fact the old pete that would have had this law ability but that that claim that was pleaded in the original complaint was pleaded against the wrong party and that incorrect party cannot cannot answer for that assumption claim because that party the a t o did not assume that obligation from j w d so completely leave cannot be granted in this matter and we would argue that that a that the united eight hundred dollars united b r o p is an indispensable party and should have been allowed to be brought in as an additional defendant in this case and the fact that it destroys diversity because they happen to have a california resident and be a kelly happens to have a california as an is is is just the facts that we all agree on but it's not it's not anyone's fault we did not form shop or seek to engage in any unit well in louisiana in a sense gets a free ride i mean they don't have to pay the cost of the well those cost recouped out of any production by the operator if there is production i think that bears on one of the questions is what are we looking at here in terms of dollars and it is a very significant claim they're seeking for for drone sixteen wells one haynesville will and fifteen cut valley wills now we know from the cases that the statute that will cost reporting statute is it involves a very serious financial penalty the cases say and therefore must be strictly construed and and unleased owner that seeks to trigger a four for drug or the statute has got to comply with the statute the cases say to the letter of the law and that's what this case is about now in adams bush's chesapeake which i think judge higginbotham was all that panel and that was back in two thousand and fourteen this court affirmed what we call domain rule important to understand what that means to to get for protected in order to trigger reporting under the statute the unleased owner has to say that operator a letter that complies with section one hundred and three point one but in order to get a forfeiture they have to opportunity to adieus whatever evidence they needed to reduce and judge dowdy ruled and his ruling is critical it's not based on the single factor what he said is that the simple two thousand and seventeen letter did not constitute a formal demand under section one hundred and three point one based on a combination of factors and it is this combination that's a critical number one it didn't cite the statute didn't cite section one of three point one it didn't ask for initial or quarterly reports like the statute says number three it asked for it didn't track the language of the statute critical number for it asked for information into a summary fashion and it asked for information with be a killer was represented by counsel during this entire period so yes both parties are sophisticated parties but what the big kelly is trying to their argument is oh we're we're lying on technicalities well i think that proves our point exactly your honor we're entitled to rely on technicalities they're seeking a significant financial penalty here the courts say you got it cross your t s and dot your i's and that's not what they did and be actually  suit against they thought operating the operator seeking forfeiture which is what they were supposed to do they didn't do any evidence in connection with the rule fifteen motion that would substantiate the argument they were a necessary or even or an i just don't think there's been a showing and and moreover it's hard for me to articulate their position that a thought united's a necessary party i've never understood the argument frankly but that's what i haven't either and that's what i'm trying out it's very hard to ask me that question because i just simply don't understand it your honor and we have a so did every objection in the book in state court but again that's beyond the scope of this record now  can i don't know what where the court was to go here ak and discuss the pin and jurisdiction issue there's i can go deeper into what the case law says about what has to be in these letters because we have a good body a law on the wall called reporting statu well you know and to be in the letters well i don't think the judge held that any specific element had to be in the letter and the just district judge tells us in his december th ruling that it's a it was a combination of factors that led the letters to be ambiguous it wasn't just the failure to cite the statute itself it was those other things outside it before woman it inside the statute they didn't ask  summary information they didn't do this they didn't do that the court said well look it was ambiguous it has to be to the letter and it wasn't to the letter now i was about to burst before the court to civil cases there's the adams case that judging about them was in and in that case the request the st request actually makes reference to the statute the same in this miller bush's j w case that comes out of the western district and the same in this image him bush's exco case the only case that we can find where the language of the letter is cited that doesn't refer to the statute itself as the twenty one dollars oil and gas case from the louisiana rd circuit court of appeal but critically in that case the unleased owner asked for an issue and quarterly reports and then tracked the language in the statute so there was not the end big you would be the judge daddy was focusing on the forms letter and the nd letter we did the same thing we looked and see looked in the cases for quoted language from the nd letter and every look mr britain what exactly are you asking for mr britain said well i would like to report kind of like an adult goose and mr kelly said why don't our mr hickey settle can you please to me a copy of the report so we can make you report that looks just like that importantly that never happened mr burton said he would any never did he misled mr hickey listen i think the entrapped mr hickey but that's that's my speculation  back to the question hit mr hickey stated in his contradicted affidavit that had they simply done any of these things cited the statute said quarterly or initial reports he would have known the symptom what they now say they will so here we are again they want a extraordinary written body from us and and we're entitled to assert these alleged technicalities as a defense and that's exactly what we did want to come up and pinned an appellate jurisdiction well that's an interesting question legally this court and i'll talk to that in a minute there are two kind of competing arguments there but even if you review the denial it's certainly not an abuse of discretion under the circumstances and the magistrate judge does a good job of saying look they don't make a showing i can't just speculate that is an indispensable part of the make no showing secondly the magistrate does appropriately applies the his can specters that we're familiar with and they said look it's transparent that they were seeking to destroy the course devotion to the jurors direction to to get to state court where they thought they might get a different result in the court said they were doing with laurie what they knew eight months prior that this other entity was out there and they knew for a fact that it was the least owner ng into deep in that i think it's irrelevant and then you didn't knew that it was  that it was not diverse because october when those e mails are in the record as well the court said look this was four or five months after the del i'm for the joinder of additional parties it was two or three months after they've  united state court and then the magistrate judge looked at the equities which is the th the actor in the court said look i just don't think you can play fast and loose with the jurisdiction of this court ask us to rule in your motion  get an adverse opinion and then try to undo our jurisdiction we then the judge said that's unjust and improper and i tend to agree with the magistrate now it's turning to the few avenues available for pinned appellate jurisdiction we know is supposed to be reserved for rare and unique circumstances and we cited all the cases we could find from this court most of them involve qualified immunity and disp nineteen denials because they don't as that principle matter implicate the courts subject matter jurisdiction and they follow the link in property case from the supreme for two thousand and five which basically says that which is eleven argument the other argument is the master card case from the nd circuit in that case the court said well because the nineteen it really wasn't in one thousand motion but the court c it was very complicated factually but the court construed overruled one thousand dollars motion to rule twenty four dollars motion they said well we're going to go ahead and consider it on appeal because we do think that whether this entity was an indispensable party could have a bearing on the cour jurisdiction because of the diversity problem so those are the two cases in the tension point it's a decision for this court but again i don't think it's particularly material in the outcome of this case because even if you have a view it would be very difficult to find an abuse of discretion here this is not a situation where they sought to join a nod to bush party prior to seeking a dispositive motion matter fact is just the opposite they s that your honor it's maybe in the supreme court somewhere someday maybe this case will say that out here i think the court does have some discretion are we going to go revisit a a rule fifteen motion that in my view was quite transparent on its face in an effort to undo everything that had been done up to that point i hope i have addressed the court's questions up  the summary judgment record is not particularly robust here they had their chance to litigate this and they seem to want to kind of undo the result and we don't think that's fair we think what judge dowdy did is the correct result would when you're talking about forfeiture whether it's in this case or any of these haynesville shale wells that were involved in those numbers can quickly quickly escalate to a lot of money and these operators they say they should be put they should they're entitle to formal notice under section one hundred and three dollars before they're placed in jeopardy of forfeiting what could be in some cases millions of dollars of will recoup and remember the forfeiture is something of a windfall for these unleased owners they never had to pay that money in the st place they say they get a free ride so the equities here do in my view favor the operator we need clear notice and the courts have done a good job thus far of well being the interest of the least in or against the operator we would urge this court to affirm what's been done so far we're going to have to fight that we're all fighting this and assumes all abilities and obligations of j w the previous operator we make that claim however and articulate that claim based upon a november th scuse me a september two thousand and sixteen letter that  liabilities knob legations of the previous operator j w so had we known and this this notion that well they had the opportunity to file the suit and they chose that that that they chose the federal district court west louisiana this is true we chose it but it was determined by the fact that it was diverse from kelly land company which no party in this case disputes that was not late until much later that we determined and understood  became aware of the fact that it was in fact the limited partnership that actually own these leases and it was only against the lp that he claims we could be pursued for what we call the j assumption calling so this notion that we chose the the bill you know we we did choose the venue but it was based on the flawed assumption and the flawed information provided to be a kelly and that's why that litigation was was instituted in that in that setting and i also want to point out to the court that when we filed our motion for summary judgment it was a motion for partial summary judgment only one claim because the court did not have the court had nothing before it regarding the j w such a claim the revenue stream and the costs that had been that we were seeking in the accounting that we were seeking in connection with this case and as a result the court did not have sufficient evidence to look and make a determination as to the efficacy of those claims and therefore we were not unkindly and our filing of the amended pleading seeking to add an additional party that was there was not diverse and therefore jurisdiction of the court was implicated again this is not a situation where we chose to add this party simply to defeat the court's jurisdiction we chose to add this party because we had no other viable alternative given the district courts indication that it intended to dismiss the entirety of our lawsuit all coins not just the forfeiture claim and mr combat makes that point in his statement to this court and to his argument to this court where he it when he indicates plainly that this fact a a a party to this to this district court case and so we think there is indispensable now and i will point out too that the way this assignment flows from one from j w to the lp and then