of the questions that i'm sure you're going to address this but it came up at the district court is well what does the court look at for purposes of the re man removal issue just the four corners of the complaint was filed in state court that clearly seem to be state claims are being the court go outside of the complaint and if so what are the things in the court your honor the case law makes clear that a court may look outside the four corners of the complaint because the well pleaded complaint rule that makes a plank if the master or mistress of her own action has as its corollary the article pleading doctrine which means that you cannot leave out the basis for federal claim are a federal question simply by our full pleading and so not only does the statute make reference to additional documents filed a me based on deposition testimony so i think the law is clear that where the complaint does not necessarily disclose the basis for federal jurisdiction one may look to other it correctly and the district court was aware that her limit or injunction time opposing counsel had had had relied in part on a work for hire doctrine theory it's hard to know i can't position is that the removal was proper the removal was certainly proper and so the district court found repeatedly this case is on all fours with the court's decision in just met and it's not because in this case what they're saying is we have a copyright claim we could bring and we're not bringing well in just might argue a breast of well if you if your position is that the removal was proper then you are not arguing that it was just purely us state complaint was declined no because and you just met as here where you have state law claims which in turn depend on ownership which was clear in all of the in the applications for an injunction and along the way the regents repeatedly said that the only relevant issue since a hearing that injunction or ownership of the compilation of data and ownership of the underlying computer system and there was no basis cited nor put there be any basis other than federal copyright law but you know you stick at that position and it's a lot of real estate to defend i think i'm very curious about that because you argue strenuously that the only way they can prevail on their existing remaining claims is if they can prove ownership and the only way to complete ownership is through copyright that they respond i look look look where is the response w brief there is there is one sentence and i agree it's brief but it says no no we're going to rely on copyright forgive me contract state statute and employer employee i think something like that it's  very vague but it will be their problem really is i think but but what's wrong with that what's wrong that iran or is that it is clear is that the materials we're dealing with here which is a computer system software code and a compilation of data are works protected by the federal copyright law not disputing that they're big they agree they could be asserting copyright and they're not asserting it's a different question please  problem is can you really defend the position you've taken which is that the only way they would have the right ownership for control is through copy yes i can ok the cases i would cite from that cumbers will conversions been preempted your yes clune conversion the remaining part of conversion depends on ownership under the carpet right off of the cases that you think i think the case is that prove this or cases like feist for ninety nine us three forty where the united states supreme court held that with respect to a world phone directory they have that the listings themselves were not subject to copyright and because they were not subject to copyright they are also not subject to any conflicting state laws because for state for the state to grant greater rights then congress is granted under the federal power copyright law or the federal patent law would conflict with the expli of federal protection and that case is sears roebuck in company versus stifel company three seven six us two twenty five that case involved a pole lamb and the united states supreme court decision by justice brock because only congress has the constitutional authority to make patent and copyright laws allowing this state to provide further protection f materials which congress has determined should be free for instance facts and ideas would serve to block off from the public something which federal law has said belongs to the public these are telephone and the first complaint is with sponsors it does but it also says in securing that injunction which i would point out to the court they continue in their current brief to this court on pages twenty seven and twenty eight take u s c to task for not complying with an injunction which was specifically based on ownership and and in their briefs to get that injunction they said the only relevant issues are whether the e d c system and underlying computer software and computer code and the a c s starter data are owned by plaintiff the regions in answering the question are any of the defendant's own owners of this data or of the system excuse me and the underlying software programs and the a d c s data is known by the regents in here they say the sponsors is clearly set out in the copyright act in a political federal regulations indeed not free to provide protection for that for materials which are within the scope of the copyright act as these are here but are specifically exempt from the ownership requirement right and isn't that their problem on remand since they will have clearly jettisoned any copyright claim well it's their problem henri mand except for the fact that they have an injunction they're still trying to enforce which i would argue is specifically it hasn't been changed and have an appeal on the basis of just will stop will you run it the problem right now is that if we go back to the state court the state court has once already without any basis other than copyright law issued an injunction we had that recount nine motion spending at the time for a job with a motion for summary judgment motions and second briefing on a motion to clarify the injunction are three the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction except we haven't dismissed any claims over which the court had original jurisdiction and indeed unless we have done that the way the statute is written and the way it's been interpreted by this court does not allow a court to decide on its own they wants to quote get rid of the case indeed in the executive software is that we want to get rid of this case because our among other didn't mention copyright nor did the defendants in the state court nor did the nine summary judgment motions mention any dispute over copyright is there a copyright somewhere involved in the running of a research program sure there are many this is what is at issue here is a computer system a tool that was used in running this research program you're telling me what you think is just a court should have found but the district court's order tells me the district court thought that your client had invoked copyright and even in the second order that is really one we're looking at he says i was right then and i'm right now so if we want to focus on the first order because i think that's the the heart of the dispute because the argument from have talks about the amended complaint changing the complection if the district court reasoning was that your client had effectively jettisoned a claim it didn't want anymore that's error isn't it  know that really goes to the heart of the forum shopping that we worry about you know yes exactly that's form shopping is the central issue in this case let's talk about the computer system that's at issue here what the defendants did use that's not answering  question i'm sorry to talk about it your time but you're not answering the question ok if you could redirect me to your question i'll try and answer my worry counsel is is in abuse your time but my question is that in this second order the district court is taking the position that i think very clearly that that you see as he did invoke copyright he thinks he was right then that's why he had jurisdiction writing that it and then he's saying in the second order as i read it that he ought not get in your way that the amended complaint has changed the complection i fully appreciate your argument is that you didn't have a copyright claimed in the first or the second but the district court's order says the that he thinks he did and that the amended complaint changes the complection and that i ought not require you to go forward on a we claim that you don't want to go forward on anymore and vats a forum shopping concern for me at least since we started out in state court we're not shopping for a different court than we chose initially and we're the master of our complain let me explain to you why that is wrong though you do take the position that it was improperly removed yes it was improperly removed there was no federal jurisdiction here ever this in your favor do we have to decide that both of the orders were wrong  claims to state court where the plaintiff has said we're not relying on copyright law as your honor pointed out that's our problem or a master of our complaint if they're right we'll get back to state court and we'll lose because they'll have to he clearly would have had the discretion to do that and and just a court judges do that all the time they exercise their discretion to to not exercise supplemental jurisdiction when a claim is lost when it's dismissed that's not happened here what he's saying is you've got your your team didn't want to go forward with the claim that you're disavowing it and since we're looking at that first complaint your response of course is it's not in the first complaint but he's read it in there and that's really the the gist of it he would he doesn't do in this order and by the way i think this is a very close case it doesn't really it's not a neat fit but what he doesn't do is look to thirteen sixty seven and say here is what i'm relying on is the dismissal what is it  that but that's an issue it's not explained this case is different from the case they rely on just mad because in just mad to the face of the complaint alleged a copyrighted work proprietary software and there servers that run a computer program third parties over the internet transmit data to this computer system in the courts case it's pleadings in our situation it's medical data facts from patient to this computer system that we ran for our program for our research study with our employees with our contractual relationships with our sponsors and what the defendants did was they took that computer system and they redirected it to an jurisdiction because it does not allege any federal claim it does not allege that a copyrighted work like just med that could be the subject of a work for hire dispute it does not allege as just matt did a dispute with the defendants over whether they were employees  ownership which kind of indicated that you were considering a federal can we raise the issue in response to the argument from the defendants the argument they made in opposition to the injunction was this computer use a computer system that had been taking data for storing it on servers on campus that they moved to the amazon cloud account the injunction was over control of that amazon cloud account which we owe him because we have a contract with amazon that says that that's our computer system their argument was the the people let at u c s d are not smart enough to run this program and it would risk harm to the studies if you granted an injunction that prohibited the defendants from continuing to use you see as d's amazon computer system at their new institute so in response to that specialized knowledge argument that we're the only ones who know how to run this we responded that doesn't provide them with any legal right if you look state or federal law they have no legal right they don't have a leg to stand on and just because we say they don't have a leg to stand way judgment is looked at this was that our six state law claims even though we did the logic copyrighted work because of going outside the well pleaded complaint rule and looking at arguments outside the complaint responding to issues that are irrelevant to our claims he said well that's enough for me to to create federal jurisdiction here and that's wrong because it's a violation of the will play the complaint rule there was no artful pleading so that was there and he  as when we amended our complaint and we inserted additional language that said we are not relying on copyright law just like i told you not just meant not just yes and judge but he has written viewed that as removing the issue that we said file if you think we've got case file this as you can get every man after you're in federal court yes by filing an amend the complaint that dismisses a claim yes it was so it was cited that in our brief i don't have the  think it doesn't implicate the form shopping if there's not implicate forum shopping your honor to send state law claims to be in state court the whole time yes there is a plaintiff for them we're not shopping for a different forum from the one we brought the case and you know they're the ones who are tossing counsel and i don't know i don't think you're intentionally missing this i'm sure you're not you've been over it and over it but the problem is having your cake and eating it too that is their argument that you didn't include the claim that you argue doctrine or anything of anything they don't have very these were employees of the everson california who stole a research program but i'm located have i any right as employees as owners of property as as authors of copyrighted works they don't have any right to take any of this claims conversion does not require ownership if you if you steal my library book i have a claim for conversion all the conversion requires this possession computer crimes under california penal code five o two doesn't require that the owner of the computer system prove that they own the copyright in the software that's running on the system it's if i steal your laptop that's what they did here they took a computer system why is it that state law requires a plaintiff to plead and prove ownership of the soft copyright in the software that's running on that laptop that's been stolen they have money they muddy the issues in order to avoid enforcement of the state court injunction and  when to do that because they want to control over our computer system to run their program and that's a was a breach of producer duty by dr ayson it was wrongful and the district court abused no discretion in remanding purely state law claims to the argument that was never your intention to assert a copyright we yes that's absolutely right it was not in the complaint for there i think the logical result was that you think the first order was incorrect yes thank incorrect for the district court to understand that they were asserting the claim because the first complaint didn't then the second complaint and they've made that very clear which is why the just a court has said you will not be heard anymore making noises about copyright why is that  page forty nine of the current brief to this court and i quote directly just because a case involves a copyright does not mean the federal subject matter jurisdiction exists they have not dropped copyright as a basis for ownership on pages twenty seven to twenty eight if their brief the continued colace so for not obeying an injunction which was explicitly based on their likelihood of success as to ownership unless thirteen sixty seven c three is met there have been i think you're right about that as a matter of law and so it seems to me that what this district court order does the one that's actually on appeal is to say i'm dismissing already you know if you if you ever had it you don't have it anymore and you're not going to be heard going forward isn't that thirteen sixty seventy no because with thirty six you seven see refers to is the dismissal of federal claims your honor there have been no federal claims dismissively or any other reason for the district court to assert jurisdiction in the first place the only reason to assert jurisdiction in the first place is the same reason it recognizes that it has jurisdiction right now which is that this case turns underlined every one of the theories that they put forward is stealing our computer system stealing our get it indeed in the first stream and order the district judge specifically recognized that the amended complaint did not eliminate all copyright issues because it might still apply to the collection of data and as you heard mr sharp here today he repeatedly said that the essence of this case is stealing the system and stealing the compilation of data and just repeat iran or that system and that compilation seven c since executive software makes clear that you need to state your reasons and none of these reasons reference that section thank you very much for your arguments