a and we should the mexican state should have the right to go to trial the mexican states presented evidence in the fashion of the declarations of two ministers the minister of the those declarations that were submitted proved that the mexican states own manage control and minister let me ask you a question because i realize but it's it's a difficult fit analytically to determine proprietary rights of the sovereign states and nation of mexico in terms of what a bareboat charter is but that being the oil your honor we have we have independent claims for honor to those of the republic of mexico for example we have different tax structures i cannot read the states cannot reclaim several income and or federal income tax and or sales tax th derived those are those are different the states how their own budgets their states are in charge of their own coastlines the states are in charge of their own nesting sites for example for turtle which were affected species in this oil spill they have their own recover what their budgets have expense for the oil spill defense and so not minding that was not the implication i drew from the tenor of the brief i thought they were looking for lost revenue are independent to those other republic and the damages run in parallel and that in mexico there's the figure of concurrency so the mexican states acknowledging that we as that federal law reaches all the way into their territory and i such they are the first protectors and defenders of it and in when you allege to talk about the word nation it's interesting to point out that the mexican constitution does not define determination yet the state constitutions do say that those states are autonomy as an independent from the republic any claimant asserting a general maritime l giving british petroleum cintron solutions admissions of criminal moving aside but moving aside from it and in assuming so the mexican states do your honor well there but you i know you say they do but but but would you agree with me that parishes and states in the united states are bringing simultaneous suits yours is just the first that has gotten to this proprietary interest level that is correct or ok and we all have and it is my understanding they all have their different damages and a republic do meet those proprietary interest because they obviously claim that they are the owners or the title owners of the interests yet what's very interesting and given the fifth circuit president regarding literally similar to what the mexican states do you know if i were the trial judge here in a highly i'm never so presumptuous but it just seems to me in your that the trial judge should take you and counsel for the nation of mexico and say go work this out between yourselves and then file one complaint because had you proceeded under the o p it seems to me you just have one right well your honor i'm going to have to tell you up until this day and even though we the mexican states did sue on under oath originally in our complaints we do not believe that obama is the exclusive remedy both for the mexican nation and the mexican states now i want to make very clear to this court that i'm only representing the mexican states of your open position i think i'm right if we just look at the opa preconditions would be conclusive on all mexican claimants because if you look at opa as to foreign claimants there's got to essentially be a treaty you're under no one's pointed to a treaty yet so if open displacement applies here no mexican claimant will ever be able to recover that is correct your honor that everybody would be completely displaced not unless we believe that obama does not displace admiral much discussion of that and that's a very consequential position what was the district court's exact ruling on open displacement didn't reach it right he didn't get to the three part framework no your honor i did not well judge harvey earlier alluded in his older orders that did not displace maritime law now with this particular case i do not believe that mexico has a treaty or an executive agreement with the united states regarding the qualification of thirty three u s c twenty seven zero seven and it is very simple as to why your honor the mexican oil industry belongs still a sub today to the government and it's an issue of sovereign immunity and that and that means that there would have been no reciprocity had the accident occurred in mexican waters and the texas beaches been defiled is that correct there is no reciprocity and anybody here in texas would have had to sue in the courts and mexico and been confronted with sovereign immunity when your honor there is an energy reform going on in the countr by the way i don't necessarily fault mexico because only in the united states do you have the breadth of damage it's available so a treaty would have to solve the difficulty in your honor mexico and the united states from what i understand reached recently through the state department a permit to drill in a very particular corner of the gulf of mexico that is very deep waters and we were very hopeful that a treaty  reciprocity nonetheless it is our position that through admiralty law the mexican states and obviously that's their case but the mexican republic can eventually recover their economic damages caused by they also acknowledge the fact that there are concurrency and the ways that federal law and state laws do apply and merge and it seems to me that they're trying to seek to expand the robin's role in race the bard to make good to the tune of god if we don't have a decree or a title to our state territory even though we're autonomy as an independent then we don't have the right to reclaim we're nowhere else we see well you know again we run into this fairy vexing question about the state of the mexican constitution and mexican laws and if the current the constitution implied from the section twenty seven whatever the states have is at the pleasure of the federal government and you'll have to excuse me but long ago when i was studying a little bit about mexico long long ago i thought it was a far more sweeping conclusions about the federal structure existing federal structure of mexico's state government relationship judge bar b i did his best and to canvass this but you're telling us there's no distinctive legal authority that belies the proposition he fine your honor the mexican states are independent and autonomy as you know but the right i'm used to show we're into the grid of facts about yes it looks like and i don't mean to be light about this but the turtles in particular you see both entities protecting the turtles from this giant plume of oil yes rose but you would think that there would be a legal some legal expression that was categor this large your honor it is and it happens to be concurrent jurisdiction her but where you are that that term is very familiar to us in the united states but what's your best authority as to what concurrent jurisdiction means as to property ownership in mexico it would be titles if i'm not mistaken title five of the g l in ne and literally literally don't get to it monitor the assets and and we've cited plenty of other entries in our brief your honor in which there is a parallel federal law and parallel state law that protect literally the same interest so for example let me take the case of the turtles state territory is where the nesting ocurred it is overlapped by federal law yet you have to des that first got to those turtle nesting i ching sites to actually protect them to barrier them to make sure that whatever oil was getting on the beach was not going to harm now these are is concurrent jurisdiction idea it sounds to me like a pretty close parallel although i said it's a very awkward situation a pretty close parallel with a time charter that is correct and robbins tried doc said  at most you have one claim it seems to me your honor all i can tell you as the mexican states have been working with the mexican republic literally for the last four years as a matter of fact it was of the insistence of the men of the governors that i represent that the mexican republics by their lack filed the lawsuit over filing from the mexican foreign ministry no filing in this case even though the state is asserting parallel claims indict is one your honor we are completely independent we're not asserting or alleging to want to see their damages were independent and autonomy and we have our own state constitution and if i may even on the last point of the islands constitutionally article three of the constitution  roe article forty six of the constitution of the state of veracruz those those islands are owned by the states and so i get it but it's a very complex integration of bo systems yet the republic is not here today opposing the us or writing a brief on behalf and or for in support of b b that they have their only ones that they claim and that their damages are the only once at stake because we're completely please the court any lying and for the b p defendants and splitting time with mr jordan and mr york i'd like to start with the case management issues that judge jones raised i think the answer may be in the chronology of what happened here appellant's brought their lawsuits to the three mexican states in september of two thousand and ten the mexican federal government the doc file its lawsuit until april twenty third team and we find that at the record on appeal on one five one two three dismissed the mexican states over claims which by the way the mexican states have not appealed the mexican states appeal before you today does not represent an appeal from the dismissal of the local claims their only claim what was the basis for the dismissal it was it was the no presentment it was it was primarily the point judge to continue yourself raise if they had not shown evidence of the existence of a treaty or an executive agreement between any mexican federal government entity and the united states but accepting that logic then am i right that the mexican government wouldn't have an open claim either which would mean that no mexican even if oil were a foot deep on the beach there would be no acceptable mc your honor we don't know that ye necessarily apply to overclaim so there's not complete overlap but but the i mean just taking this opens sort of the tail wagging the dog but it may be more consequential yes as i understand a little bit not been able to penetrate in the mexican property law they've the restricted zone that prohibited previously foreigners from obtaining beach point property has been removed so with the logic be of open displace that mexicans state mexicans mexican government couldn't sue but us owners of states these appellants brought forward there was no evidence of a treaty the issue was not been litigated yet with the united mexican states and it very well could be the same answer will be reached at the wrist no treaty that provides reciprocity but that's not an issue that was presented in the court the world so in other words why should we bother even to speculate about the consequences of robin's dry dock and the mexican constitution and the mexican federal system which i think frankly i'm not so satisfied with the level of proof i am certainly not satisfied with sending it to a jury why isn't that the easy way to resolve this with your i don't offer same the same things we have suggested that you but you just told me that and robbins tried dakar not necessarily overlapping one hundred not one hundred percent that's correct but your but for the purposes of this case you say the claims are fairly overlap i think so i in other words in other words if there was an open claim i believe they would compensate the same damages that there would be found except for under maritime law i suppose open doesn't provide punitive damages and i suppose that's it that's the bit isn't that the biggest limits on it of by virtue of the words of the statute by virtue of the application of proximate cause asians that we think there are limits on open damages but i don't disagree that much of what the ople of what the mexican states might be seeking here would probably be recoverable under the large part of the ruling below is robyn's dry dock the vast majority of briefings from the us robinson iraq open you're right i was on the panel as you know in a c l but but it's complex and that that's that's that's a ruling that was one of first impression and precondition requirement that seems like that would be true and then you you've got levels levels of us could claim it's they can get it even as b p has been aggressively pointing out far away from the beach with no proof of damage and then you would have a mexican claim where just spot on with article twenty seven of the mexican constitution and the general law of national assets if you put those two things together and you will see that it is the nation which means under rex again law the federal government that owns the natural resources issue here and not the mexican state yet in their complaint they always use the term trusteeship they don't we did my understanding of the mexican government's parallel claim it is not that it's not worded that way as exclusive ownership they term it trustee is something that year was that they inserted because it was that was their perception of robyn's died out dry dock that it wasn't a term of art derived from mexican law yes or honor and in this case the mexican states have su d saying that they're a trustee in a trustee of the natural resources you know so you know it is our position that in nowhere have they come forward with evidence if they actually have they may have had some responsibility but no ownership nothing close to a proprietary interest in other words did it did the federal government asked them to get involved in some degree that's possible but never to the transfer to a proprietary ownership of pride again i think the crowd ology i mean if you could turn back the clock perhaps so i mean we now have a case in which they're open does claims have been dismissed and they didn't appeal that and the united mexican states that did not file their cage until april nineteenth of two thousand and thirteen after which many of their claims are already just dismissing or been full briefing of the remainder of their claims and arriving dr robbins writing us claimants is there any matter that proceed to the summary judgment stage yet it's resolved right the robins ride  proprietary interest or is this the first one that this is the first one certainly on appeal i mean we we certainly judge garvey made rowlings in other contexts about privately that the palace here yes that's going states not some poker arching determination that would later foreclose the mexican government make sovereign itself is that what you're saying aware of your iran or that of that is certainly true in other words an open displacement argument here are growing here would simply say that the the appellant's here if they have any claim at all it's only under oath and that claims are even dismissed because of their failure to bring forward evidence of the evidence of the treaty under twenty seven zero one eight by now standing whether it's been briefed to the max record has been very and it has been argued yes and it fits within our standard rubric that we can cite a case on any basis that the record supports correct yes your honor i read it would make sure i understood the narratives of the argument beasts of the if if that's the route we took that it only would be respect to the parents here in this case the mexican states not something that necessarily implicitly or unintended really would be rid of could be writ to displace any claims that are still in the pipeline of the mexican government of mexic sovereignty of the interim i agree with your honor i mean with that issue has not been litigated with the united mexican states and there would be but if there were no if we made an implicit finding there's no treaty they're going to lose there's no matter what it's a condition for any foreign cl knowledge at the moment there you see no mexican u s treaty that's a pretty so i'm not aware i'm not aware of that issue is not in the record not litigating that correct at the moment but ok but s supreme court recently denied certified that's a little different that's korea option i agree with your honor it's a little different but it's a significant ruling but i also want there to be absolutely no mistake and that's preemption on the wildlife question correct well in this case in this appeal that is correct and but and by the way of perhaps i should conclude with this i want to be very clear that yes displacement is one avenue but judge garvey i was absolutely correct in his not i think they'll be some remote decision in lack of causation and speculation and they'll be a number of attention to that  please the court i'd like to start with a question that you had judge higginson which is keeping in mind that this is in the context of a summary judgment you asked a very pertinent question rahman's dry dock to the other side what is your best portion of mexican and you know supporting the ex can states claim you asked the same thing of our side i think that the mexican law is actually quite clear that all of the natural resources and assets are owned by the mexican federal government that we've mentioned judge jones point out article twenty seven paragraph one and i want to link those two of them it's article twenty seven together with article forty two because article twenty seven paragraph one says that ownership of the lands and waters within the boundaries of a national land territory  vested originally in a nation which has had and has the right to transmit their of the private persons thereby causing private property article forty two the next and constitution defines the national land territory it says its land territory is comprised of all portions constituti federation the territory of the islands including the reefs and keys in adjacencies the continental shelf and the sea bed and subsoil of submarine areas of the islands and the waters of the territorial seas time sure there was a huge oil spill in mexico with independently in that situation made a claim about what i what i can say and in the brief time i have and then they think this important judging is and is that this constitutional provisions are also implemented in the general law a national assets two separate provisions of that law article sixteen and article to to do that the mexican federal government there is a distant corporation process that has happened to have land actually distant cooperated from the mexican federal government at any there's needless to say there's no proof of anything like that here whether it's from the guard of an individual or state proper analysis of this case and finding that the mexican states do not have a proprietary interest there are a couple of very specific evidentially points that were raised and some of the mexican states briefing that i do want to address for example in their argument even today the mexican states say that the while the mexican constitution does define the rights as between the mexican government federal government in the mexican states that the constitution itself does not define the nation as it were judged barbie as opinion and the reason parties point out that there is in fact a mexican supreme court opinion that does define the nation and that that definition does specifically state that the nation refers to the federal government of mexico and not to the individual state government secondarily use or exploitation of certain property by the mexican states number one however and of course states that that is an incorrect harker characterization of the expert opinion and in fact that the what our expert says was he cited relevant mexican law for the proposition that a concession creates at most personal rights and you know in the end rim rights which is one of the things that mr jordan was just mentioning a moment ago if we were to reach the opiah your your client would not be a responsible the district court and have referenced it for this court that even as an open non responsible party we do believe that opel would displace any general maritime law claims such that under the structure of the claimants would need to make claims directly against the  responsible parties with the upper responsible parties potentially having a statutory contribution right back against non responsible parties we've consistently argued that if open displacement does apply it applies equally to open that's another reason th briefed it in their briefs we take a slightly different position we don't think the court needs to reach it here but our position is that should the court reach it applies equally to not let me ask you one other question if we were to reverse the summary judgment of these questions of interpretation a mexican law go back to a jury i don't believe that questions of this is they are questions of law i don't think they would be appropriate for a jury well that's a federal role of forty four and just very quickly the mexican states provided declarations that were smaller that's proof judge perry he ignored the declarations of the minister of the environment of people get on the stand every day and raise your hand your honor where to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but a true runner and they take oh so i mean why is that dispositive when there is a vested interest if you will  relevant material or so or think leading testimony whether or not submitted by a party or admissible under federal rules of evidence the court's determination must be treated as a ruling on a question of law so basically the court what i have to say to that effect is that the three experts that the mexican states had back up the declarations of the ministers they are one in the same so what will so legally what the minister said it's the same thing that the mexican states experts concluded and let me just raise a few issues independently of the fact you were talking about someone in mexico being a us citizen trying to reclaim there is a and they're allowing and got their land got very little oil and they were subjected to clean ups and they are also impacted and it was going to be a big project in the state that lawsuit is still ongoing as part of the m d two one seven nine and so the notion that only the republic of mexico can file and that is inalienable in prescript of all is literally a fallacy because here is a private land owner being able to also file for their own cleanup costs treaty or an executive agreement and if you displace maritime law at the wall but even though we've supported it with some us supreme court decisions that they can run in parallel no nobody   says that participation in environmental emergency is a contingency pursuant to the civil defense policies and programs are to be run by the states and the federal government concurrently article for the federal government the states the federal district and the municipalities shall exercise their powers in matters of ecological balance preservation and restoration and environmental protection pursuant to the distribution of authority provided for in this law  would probably want to go to the supreme court well i know the u s would say i have a remedy and i don't believe so because mexican courts will tell you to the situs of the accident was that edge which isn't territorial waters of the united states they were not entertained and that's why we haven't raced it and as we have no i mean these are the the federal if you say that the mexican in mexico if you believe that the rulings of the american courts on the federal situation in mexico were incorrect and the federal government of mexico get money than would the state be able to sue the federal government of mexico for a share of the  separate claims and the mexican states and the federal government do have concurrent laws and if this court was to displace what's to say maritime law is not a remedy any and all foreigners that were damaged by this oil spill which is one body of water would not have a remedy and so we begged the court to look at the supreme court cases in the county of the noida in northwest airlines and others that we've cited in our briefs to that effect but please do not overlook the fact that the experts that the mexican states provided with no depositions and the ministers say the same thing so we did provide proof and it's well briefed in our