just a core committed two fundamental errors in its order remanding this case to state court st the district court erred by rejecting the dixon declaration which is the same type of evidence this court has held was sufficient to prove the amount controversy under cafe and louis lacrosse and henry nd the district court erred by concluding the qualities a mountain controversy calculation was over inclusive line of seeks to represent a putative class of the st one is that playing this argument that the summary judgment evidentiary rules including the best evidence rule was never raised with just court the plaintiff never objected to the dixie declaration in this ability therefore that argument colorable federal defense to the claims asserted in other words the defendant under that statute has to make some showing on the merits that it can defeat the claims that in court are different than the inquiry under kappa which looks up yet again sions in the complaint define what class is being sought to be represented to find what what they seek and determines whether it could be over five million dollars any bara this court specifically stated that it was deciding what proof required by a defendant under cafe to prove the amount of controversy the court  the testimony of the c i although in this case sufficient standing by itself for it is there some additional requirement it is your honor it is sufficient standing by itself the court in lacrosse and in henry applied the standard up to any bar which is ponderous of the evidence if the defendant must submit declarations affidavits in other summary judgment type evidence ybarra never held a summary judgment evidence free rules applied in the process when the court considered whether that motor carrier in a case brought by a punitive class of independent contractor drivers met its burden to prove the amount of controversy exceed a one million court review the declaration submitted by the company that was based on personal knowledge in a review of the company's records and held that that declaration was fish likewise in history versus central rates again a case brought by food of labs of independent contractor drivers seeking business expenses incurred by them under labor code two thousand eight hundred and two the evidence in that case was a declaration from the chief financial officer saying that he had reviewed the company's object there are you any meaningful challenge to the substance that mr jackson declaration no your honor mr softer didn't never challenge the accuracy of the figures in dixons declaration the only argument regarding the numbers in vic and dixon's declaration by the plan was that they included expenses incurred by the putative us outside the state of california he was making an argument about the scope of the allegations places that limitation testimony of the c i oau offer contrary evidence one what what this what what was the nature of the evidence that the plaintiff offered to counter the showing that was made by the trucking company the plaintiff did not submit any evidence with respect to the amount of controversy plaintiff made a timeliness argument in plaintiff made the argument about the scope of the claims in the complaint it never contested be the evidence your e submission that we make it never challenge dixon's declaration that the st time we had any challenge to the dixon declaration was the district court's or review that i think i read that to mean that he did not agree with the plan as position but he didn't explicitly address it i think that most discord can say based on it's clear precedents the complaint was and determined about the amount of controversy we removed based on our own investigation members that's a timely removal under the removal statute and leave it at that i don't think there's anything left of the district court to do the most efficient resolution here is to reverse instructions if this court has  that proposal as it is proposing a cure to a problem that just doesn't exist is knocking in in the th circuit where there is some large problem with companies submitting declarations that are either falsified or somehow inaccurate to support their money controversy i think there are other safeguards against that anyway this is a declaration that was submitted subject to the families of perjury you know of course we know that lawyers are not allowed to submit evidence that they know is false but i think the more appropriate balance here is to just rely on the company's statement by a witness who has person knowledge in us personally reviewed the company's records spending a declaration subject to the pon perjury that is adequate evidence to prove the mount controversy and then the burden shifts to the planet to transmit their own evidence to contest here we don't have contrary evidence we have evidence submitted by a declaration that was just that was but you're you know i want to be frank with you you're going to have your pushing a rock no with me instead might of what i've written to tell me that you can have a full blown trial here and that that  the plane to put on any testimonial evidence of its own which would have challenged specifically the numbers that were laid out in the testimony of the company plaintiff didn't do that and the reason i didn't do that is because all of those numbers are in the defendant's records there will be no way for the plaintiff to challenge those numbers without having the records and so what will happen in pieces like this if the ruling is that a defendant can of knowing whether mr dixon for example imported the wrong fields from a spreadsheet or added things up incorrectly or added an additional year and those mistakes are really important in the jurisdictional hunch that's because in that made very clear that this was the general rule on removal and for that matter on jurisdiction generally all of it he says it citing describing the rule dealt with a number of different bases for jurisdiction including diversity didn't you basically didn't challenge it just so the only way you win is if we agree that starry judgment type evidence needs to be presented at this particular juncture of the litigation is that correct facial attack which you probably have made here or a factual attack which i'm having trouble finding which is which attack have you made if either this was this is a factual attack the attack a factual attack to say we do not believe factually that five million dollars is that issue and lay back the gods that that sounds to me like a facial attack what is it that you have shown in evidence which challenges the numbers in other words the the existence of these categories of numbers which were shown by the officer of the company at your router that the it is is the the descendant controversy it's incumbent upon the plane of to challenge that challenge in this case was about whether or not non california expenses are recoverable under the complaint it had nothing to do in response to that challenge we submitted a declaration from a chief information officer that could in evidence how much was the duct of perfume all that information was never challenged they never challenged the dixon declaration the plain has to challenge with its own evidence if it wants to argue that that type of declaration which is based on personal knowledge never via the company's records especially the plaintiff can sum it in evidence for e record without having access to the records for example dixon listed a host of the deductions from the settlement of the future plus had the plaintiff never had any of those deductions listed on his cell meant he could have submitted a declaration that said late i never had any of those deductions on my salomons then the defendant rests this record calling questions on its own evidence and then is the defense decision whether or not to to smith additional players absolutely had enough information in a brawl this court held that it was the tourney what evidence is required under f l since abara this court has repeatedly except the declarations just like the dixon declaration the review of this court is t if the court had a problem with that type of evidence in the cross in henry councillors right it is duty bound to determine whether somebody there is subject nurturers action it would have had to find that is sufficient evidence is because it is under under the cross and henry plants waiver matters here in the court need not consider the argument raised for the st time on appeal there is one case i want to cite i didn't get to complete my answer the court asked is best evidence rule so long as the records can be entered into evidence at trial there's no question here that the supplement records dixon reviewed were business records if this case is decided on the merits at trial we can of subject matter section right to your and my colleagues have any additional question no thank you right no thank you for your helpful argument and this matter will stand submitted