the next and last case for argument this morning is adam best your vs t e i construction services and thence that were already to the case below mr solana mr jarvis they're not represented by counsel in this matter and they're not ortiz to the this cait this repeal presents the issue of whether the district court had a from removal of a personal injury lawsuit that was originally filed in the circuit court of texas county missouri the case was originally filed december th of two thousand and fourteen against only the individual defend jarvis and sol and allege that there was a serious personal injury as a result of a head on collision between jarvis and sole in the vehicle operated by the point if there was out there were allegations of injuries to various parts of the western district of missouri about twelve days after being served and the basis was that the parties were completely diverse and that as a result of the allegations of serious injury in the petition that the amount of controversy was m one hundred and sixty three dollars days after the filing of the notice of removal the plaintiff participated without objection in the case pending before the western district of missouri including submitting a joint scheduling order attending a scheduling conference making rule twenty six disclosure and serving discovery and then in most importantly i think participating in a mandatory mediation that was required under the western districts early assessment program counsel i have there's two jurisdictional questions  jurisdiction for us and then there's whether or not the district court whether this one year one year statute of limitations or limitations period whether or not that's jurisdictional i want to focus on the st which is why do we have jurisdiction over this appeal at all the district court sad that it was remanding or lack of jurisdiction might have been right might have been wrong but they did it and so why do we under the plain language of the statute why do we have jurisdiction here i understand judge the court has jurisdiction because this appeal is requesting an examination of whether the actual remained was subject was subject matter jurisdiction or a timely raise procedural defect and i think this issue came up in a two thousand and fourteen opinion by this court called arnold crossing l l c versus gander mountain but we you concede that the district court characterized it is a lack of jurisdiction i do judge i absolutely can see that fact and i think this court has record recognized perhaps in the gander mountain opinion and i'm i'm certain that the supreme court has held in that in the therm tron versus herman's door for a case that the power acts the court and power act isn't it positive i think the court has to look below the district court's characterization of what it did and determine if in fact colorable it's colorable or and if the court had jurisdiction or story authority to do what it did under one thousand four hundred and forty seven but we don't we i mean this would defeat the purpose of the entire lack of you know the entire command in the statute that we don't have appeal over remained order to decide it on the merits if we were to apply  to the district courts determination of jurisdiction there be it would it would destroy that that statute so we do something different we look at it whether it's clear bill are not what do you view as the meaning of colorable what is our task relied on a grounds for remain and that's not permitted by one thousand four hundred and forty seven then i think it's appropriate for this court to review that decision and reverse and in this instance because the district courts remained that sounds a lot to me like the novo or if you were acting i mean we're just going in and saying whether it's right or wrong why isn't it we look at it we say no it's debatable maybe the district court got it wrong i'd probably agree with you that the district court got it wrong but it's debatable so it's in fact completely diverse but i think the the legal conclusion is that the legal conclusion that it was basing remained on subject matter jurisdiction when in the examining this court's authority in the supreme court authority it clearly wasn't subjects the the order to review so you're almost saying that we have been over review over legal issues but more deferential or a view over things like the amount of controversy and whether there was complete diversity and things like that is that what you're suggesting i think that those conclusions by the district court yes judge would be completely insulated from review by four thousand nine hundred and seventy and your authority for that is our two thousand and fourteen case that your reference to earlier you have a different cases or that because i am not familiar with that proposition in part i would say it's the two thousand and fourteen gander mountain case and i would also point the court to exception was to clarify that that provision is procedural and therefore subject to an equitable exception or an equitable does hope will be necessary while i don't think there's anything argument judge but i think more likely or the the better analysis of the statute would be to look at the same way the court looks at the thirty day time limit on a notice of removal that was added into the statute at the same time and which this court and i believe every other appellate court to examine the issue has held to be procedural  and congress knew that all of these other circuits were in fact treating those time limits as procedural rather than jurisdictional and still chose not to add the language into the statute that jurisdiction over the diversity case as opposed to leaving it under the statute that is expressly in title procedure for brief that procedural requirements are not jurisdictional and thus a party may waive the right to object to removal on those grounds by one failing to raise the issue within thirty days or to engaging in affirmative activity in the federal and one case so holding is the nd circuit's opinion in this coffee which this court cited in the gander mountain opinion expressly left open the issue of whether the district court has authority to remain for an confusion sets in the all we need to do is look at the record which is the motion for a man which states that jurisdiction was lacking and cited one thousand four hundred and forty seven see it is color ball that the one year time period is jurisdictional i mean we have we have district courts that were listed out in the just a court order let's let's st decide what we need to do you said once apologize your honor i am not but i mean that with that even straight one thousand four hundred and forty seven in that situation and i guess if we want to look at it if it's colorable that's where we come into the discussion of the the amendment to the jurisdictional act to begin with the federal court's jurisdiction and venue clarification act of two thousand and eleven i mean the the legislative history says that it is designed to clarify and the title clarify what jurisdiction it is and as this court pointed out in argument why add the bad faith exception and we have cited the legislative based on the change based on the addition of the bad faith exception then yes it is culpable and if this court is required to review for that purpose then it should find that it is colorable and since it's culpable it is satisfied by act into that thank you very well thank you counsel we've set out some cases that actually demonstrate that the general rule laid out by the supreme court is the is the opposite in other words a time limit is only jurisdictional if the legislature clearly states that a colorful again because congress has now had the opportunity to revising i'm in that statute again in two thousand affected two thousand and twelve and not only chose not to add such language but chose not to move it under the