would like to reserve three minutes for a bottle it is undisputed that this case satisfies the threshold requirements for mass action status under cafe including minimal diversity as plaintiffs are washington residents and boeing is a citizen of illinois and delaware and nonetheless remained in this case under the local controversy exception the district court misapplied settled cafe law as well as this court's instructions in the first appeal as is now well established courts are to recited the correct standards it did not apply them resolving doubts against removal and drawing inferences in favor of the plaintiffs contrary to the district court plaintiffs allegations against landau for exactly the same conduct that they also attribute to boeing are far too general they and limited to satisfy the significant very simple refinements since we were here last and basically we know that we have to you know it's a pleading stage determination and we have to look to what is alleged in the complaint to see whether the local exception applies and here you have a situation where the allegations are that you know th and that they retained landau to investigate and remediate and it was for probably we've got a ten year period there right i don't see how with all it seems with all of the plaintiffs being from washington and the property is in washington and that landau you know i don't see how you could bring this case without bringing landau in and there's no way knowing at the plating stage you know if this sets a landau did nothing for ten years they would clearly it would clearly be significant what's going on and they would have to bring them in no one in their right mind if you were to bring this case without alleging landau i'm you know i boeing would just be blaming everything on my end out all right you're going to be put in the you know and that nothing and a lot of these cases say the ten years of exposure could make it worse for all the people around there so it seems like you've got a pretty big rock to push uphill here well judge callahan of course it is as i stated plaintiff's burden to prove that the local controversy exception applies and all doubts have to be resolved in favor of federal jurisdiction and this complaint does not provide any of the type of detailed allegations it's got a lot of that it it's got all of what i need allegations he's got a thing that i've just said there have to be detailed allegations from which the conduct of the in state defendant and the out of state defendant can be compared and these allegations are generic boilerplate and undifferentiated they really they're not really because if let's just say if we go to the other case where they were saying fifteen to twenty percent we have that and in that case how could you hear every single one of the plaintiffs assuming landau to be sites boing so they're they're pulling landau in on every single one of them and with out having had discovered how could you know how can you expect them to have say it's one hundred percent it's fifty percent or whatever but we know that they're also doing them we know that there's a ten year infestation in remediation period alleged why can't that just be enough here at this particular stage we're under the courts have been clear that there have to be sufficiently detailed allegations to commit that to permit the comparison to be they have them say without discovery well they could have them say they could've or not minor it's not a minor player here that's right they could have managed to remediate it again and it's over a long period of time they have to make detailed allegations to permit the comparison so one example would be the banco case that you just referenced now in banco of course the plaintiffs amended their  complaint to add detailed and express allegations that the in state defendant was responsible for fifteen to twenty percent of the overall wrongs asserted and also specifically identified the dollar value of the relief that they were seeking from the in state defendant five to eight million dollars there is nothing like that in this complaint they don't provide any basis for comparing the conduct of landau to the conduct of the following they don't specify in any way the relief that they're seeking from landau they don't allege joint and several liability which is present in almost every case whether with or significant relief requirement has been found to be satisfied they don't even allege that they're seeking damages equally from land out and boeing and in fact there are three separate claims against boeing plaintiffs are seeking separate damages on each of those claims only one claim against landau and they're not seeking equitable relief now i'd like to maybe turn just because you are getting to the details of the allegations maybe we can just look at the district court opinion pages nine ten and eleven that summarizes the allegations that the district court was relying on and basically the allegations are in this pretty much sums it up at a very high level proper remediation it's hard to imagine more generic allegations this doesn't even suffice to state a clue game against land out because there's no duty alleged from landau to the plaintiffs but even if it did there is no indication about what specific role landau played in the remediation activities there is no indication about any interactions that land may have had with these specific plaintiffs instead you simply get lumping boeing and land out together for every allegation attributing all of the same conduct at a high level of generality to both companies that just isn't enough what is the effect of the fact that on prior appeal they're holding this card at a minimum enjoying it requires a showing of in possibility it's pretty much the hardest standard to meet at a minimum here plaintiffs have to demonstrate that they meet the federal pleading standard for their claim which requires a claim that is plausible on its face this claim is not but even if they've overcome that threshold they bear the additional burden of providing detailed allegations that permit a comparison between the conduct of and the relief sought from the in state and out of state defendant and they haven't done it here this is very similar to the fifth circuit's decision in opelousas which this court cited favorably in banco there you had similarly undifferentiated allegations against an in state and out of state insurance company alleging that they had engaged in a fraudulent payment scheme and what the court said is those allegations do not suffice to carry significant basis because you can't make a comparison between the conduct of the in state and out of state defendant based on those allegations now here there's the further problem which is that this this complaint spans almost five decades this is about boeing's use of industrial solvents at the auburn fabrication plant it's alleged release of those solvents into the ground it's entry into the agreed order with the state department of ecology to investigate him or mediate the contamination and then the remediation activities that occurred as boeing's responsibility during the subsequent ten obligation to do the remediation since two thousand well is that in significant well it's insignificant because it's supposed to be through the lens of an experienced lawyer or judge and the time that they were supposed to be doing remediation that's when the plumes were going further and it was affecting more people and it was a longer exposure over a period of time why why couldn't land out be significantly responsible for exacerbating the situation well when the plane first started it wasn't really getting to anyone but over a period of time well that's where it's important to always return to the fact the plaintiffs have the burd they have to make specific allegations all doubts have to be resolved in favor of federal jurisdiction so while there are a lot of things that are possible when you have a boilerplate generic complaint like this they're the ones who have to provide the allegations that permit the comparison to be made when you just lumped two defendants together look if their arguments are are accepted here would result in a significant shift in the law because it would mean that any time plaintiffs you an in state and out of state defendant and just allege generically will both defendants caused us harm that would necessarily satisfy the requirements but that's not the law you know we got the requirements and it would amount to an effective reinstatement of the presumption against kaffir removal that the supreme court has rejected these allegations are so bare bones that they don't even state a duty but if they did there's the additional burden the plaintiffs have to overcome in order to permit that comparison and we would submit that when you have five decades of conduct and you have boeing that was responsible for the initial releases and boeing that was responsible for the agreed order with the state department of ecology and landau at most came in as an isolated role player at the end of the day that they are not a significant defendant o may please the court david bigelow and elizabeth donaldson on behalf of plaintiffs in the polies this is the essence of a local controversy in fact as this court has said in coleman the local controversy exception is intended to identify a controversy that uniquely effects a particular locality we are less than thirty miles away from a place in which boeing for decades polluted virtually the doorsteps of the plaintiffs in this case we are not just suing boeing however as the court has already observed we are claiming separate and distinct and discrete negligence claims against landau a company that holds itself out to be a engineering design firm who specialty is environmental remediation one of boeing's claims in its papers to this court was that the plaintiffs did not specifically identify who land  which seems somewhat ludicrous to the extent that boeing actually hired them to the extent that boeing knew exactly who land was and what it was charged with to suggest that we have not informed boeing  to all plaintiffs to exercise reasonable care in their testing specifically in fact identify the testing that we believe and of the alleged land was to do for the areas in which they had not once but twice identified plans to do a competent investigation to do appropriate remediation to do appropriate cleanup we further allege as an element of our damages that land that you're seeking from landau we are seeking the relief of the difference in diminution in value in part because as we said when it struck constraint your complaint constrained to the complaint we are claiming the diminution in value of the an obligation now we have alleged in paragraph four point one of through four point one nine that both boeing and landau identified a plume of pollution originating in migrating from boeing's property that they knew that the movement of all cannick volatile organic compounds posed a threat to health and safety because in fact that's landau's business they knew that the pollutants would contaminate the ground water and soil particularly under washington law there was a reference made to the fact that we fail to include monetary amounts while washington law does not permit plaintiffs who are alleging as we are personal injuries and medical monitoring as well as damage responsible for my failure to that extent should the court believe that an amendment for that purpose and any other discrete description of landau's behavior is necessary but beyond a suggestion in the in the court's discussion about can you amend the complaint my response in fact was yes we can and the court's observation the plaintiffs may need to amend their complaint as directing me to the district court as you see now that was a misplaced assessment on my part however in fact as we see the district court observed what we believe is the basis of this complaint which is we have two discrete claims it is not one compressed claim it is two claims boeing's pollution from land cleanup land as this court is again notice this morning has the us cafcass local controversy exception require a court to determine whether the claims against the in state defendant are significant in themselves or significant in comparison to the claims against the out of state defendant because boeing san hey well they're saying right here hey we're the big polluters for these purposes so landau is like a small fish so what does significant relief mean significant relief on the facts of this case means as we have alleged in the five point two one through to eight paragraphs that land had a duty under washington law to perform its task competently that land failed to perform those tests and more specifically that and discreetly not as counsel has suggested that we simply lumped all the complaints together we have alleged that land was responsible for testing where and we further allege that where there is pollution there is a need for remediation one job for land is that remediation and to the extent that itself is a significant damage and that is a significant basis for our claims land by the way does have a duty under washington law and we have in fact alleged th owes a duty now in its papers palin's has cited to burn versus shannon wilson incorporated a washington appellate case to the for the present proposition that the plaintiffs in that case could not show a duty because they were arguing that the defendant had failed to warn those plaintiffs of recommendations that they were making to a third party the washington supreme court has express rejected that concept when as here the plaintiffs have alleged a direct negligence claim against a design firm under michael's versus c h two m hill one seventy one washington second five eighty seven those plaintiffs alleged liability for the design firms own active negligence that michael's court held the design professionals such as lando have a duty to exercise the degree of care and skill as others in the community and at paragraph five point two five we'll ledge that land that exact duty to exercise reasonable care we further allege land breached that duty in failing to reasonably investigate and document and track and test and contain so to the extent that the palin's have claimed that there was no analysis for example of landau's role as they do in the briefing page eleven the second remained order which is a plain is that excerpt of record pages fifty six to fifty nine notes that our first amended complaint claims that landau affected through its conduct and negligence one hundred percent of the plaintiffs as this court has noted this morning all the plaintiffs are suing landau that the district court noted in its order that land independent of boeing identified the two forms of pollution that land our new as we claimed that a failure to use reasonable care would cause further contamination and  further delay and further contamination and failure to properly inform our plaintiffs of what they were facing because in terms of the actual property planes land failure we allege essentially amounts to exacerbating the stigma already available to the public and its failure to contemplate how to avoid that or make a public declaration that everything's cleaned up which hasn't happened against land a separate and distinct negligence claim and in our prayer for relief by the way the plaintiffs have asked for all of the damages against each defendant we have not presumption in favor of the federal court your honor as a basic proposition that is true and literally days before we appeared before this panel last year that wouldn't have been true until the dar charity industry case came down from the supreme court but independent of that the courts that have addressed this issue which is i fairly narrow level of scrutiny at this point as ban coleman have pointed out have said that where it's a little truly local controversy then remained is the appropriate response and this is could not be a more local controversy now to the extent that the appellants have claimed we failed to show that land conduct is not important to suggest that the land does not have its own independent duties of investigation and remediation is somewhat absurd of course lando had its own independent duties and because we can sue land and did under washington state law they have the same obligations as any other actor in terms of their negligence claims now in one aspect of the the case i would commend to the court is the district court case of anderson versus hackett from the southern district of illinois in fact the district court that considered the coleman matter at first blush used the hackett case which is six forty six  ten forty one as a template to determine whether this was in fact a separate indiscrete to the hague or simply that court rejected argument that if the in state defendants behavior is not as bad as the out of state actor then it's not significant and in fact what it found was if a local defendant's actions and the allegations against it are a significant aspect of relief for all the plaintiffs as they are here then there is in fact to both a significant basis a significant record sound is safe but that kind of goes back to my question is it just significant as to landau or if it's significant compared to boeing well here's the problem or is it we would argue that boeing that landau's own conduct is a significant basis of relief in fact as the enderson court pointed out if we had simply sued lando for this conduct which we could under washington law we would be entitle to the same relief we're suggesting there now which would therefore make it a significant claim so independent of boeing we have asked for significant relief and we have a significant basis based on land what you sears the problem with that you're on a one washington law is pretty clear that we cannot use a monetary benchmark we can't put down how much each of these people posed to us as far as a percentage of harm to the extent that it was easier to do in banco because those were sums certain those were monetary amounts that could be identified we can't do that here  are in federal court and were invited to a manger pleading where you still am strong in washington law no your honor we were not well to the extent that again and please don't hold this against my plaintiffs to the extent that i was looking at did we meet the requirements for remained i was looking at whether we met the requirements for for me man but as a practical matter i don't believe we can put in dollar amounts because the process is ongoing none of our claimants have had their property remediated none of our claimants know whether there is any particular medical monitoring required none of our claimants know whether their property is free of pollution or not and because there is no end point to which we can then say well this part was boeing and this part was land we are not in a position to make that kind of argument and to finally address if i may that issue we can claim in an amended complaint and by the way boeing has claimed that there is no reason to allow us to amend because after all we delayed for two years now and i'm sorry but boeing is complaint that we have delayed is like the menendez brothers claiming to be orphans we have filed a complaint had it remained it filed an order for remained again and had it remain and it we are back here but i think the court's earlier questions to boeing are on point to the extent that we have shown through a discreet claim of negligence that land conduct is significant and by asking for relief from landau for the claims we've made against land our relief is significant we have quantitatively had a coleman this court's decision in coleman six thirty one f three d at ten eighteen and there are other cases as well that have that have held that from other circuits and i'm not aware of any case going in the other direction just to correct some some things that my colleague said about what's in the complaint the complaint does not allege that land was responsible for the testing the complaint alleges in four point one eight that landau and boeing cadet conducted the testing and sampling and the only theory that plaintiffs rely on in their briefing is third party beneficiary status they have an alleged that their third party beneficiaries of the boeing landau contract they haven't stated a third party beneficiary claim you have to plead it you can't just plead negligence and then expect the court to fill in the gaps with claims that you haven't even raised and then even if they had pled it under clear washington law as a district court found there is an express disclaimer of third party rights in the building landau contract saying look coleman says you look only at the complaint right to determine if you guess that the contract is incorporated into the complaint it's referenced in the complaint this court can take judicial notice to district court this rich court judicial notice of the contract and that would be consistent with limiting it to the complaint but in any event they haven't pled third party beneficiary let me just focus on significance only for relief call me could you tell me the specific language on page two hundred eighteen that you're relying on to say that there must be a comparison between the defendant the great bulk of any damage and warrant is sought from the out of state defendant rather than from the local defendants that's you're talking about significant relief they're not talking at that it has to be your i think read too much into that in that case that's what they're saying but where does it say that you have to show a comparison like what judge robinson said that significant relief can't just be significantly in and of itself well i would i would submit that just the way i read that language it's saying that the standard is whether the great bulk was sought from the in state rather than the out of state and there are some courts some courts have taken this example to mean that a district court as part of this determination should make affects the decision so it doesn't say that that requirement no i might my only point as ralston is that the standard is not whether it is an absolute amount as compared to the out of state as compared to the out of state defendants plaintiffs if plaintiff simply did not seek significant relief from local defendant and then evidence for forty nine of three d at eleven sixty seven analyzing whether relief sought from local defendant has comparative significance relative to the relief sought from out of state defendants we would submit all the cases all the circuit courts have held that there are no cases going the other direction if i may just finish up with one final setting forth it's a comparative requirement and if and tell us how we compared how we make the comparison this pretty much left to last well there may be cases at the margin that are difficult and would require some line draw this case is not one of those difficult cases first of all the plaintiffs seek in their complaint is relief from landau that is sufficient to compensate them for the harm from landau's negligence they don't tell us what that negligence was they don't tell us how significant that negligence was in connection with their harms they don't provide any basis for even knowing what relief it is they're seeking and they don't have discovery yet well yes j judge gellman but that's their burden on that's their burden at this stage is to supply the detailed allegations that would permit that type of comparison that's quite that's why this court in the first appeal gave them the opportunity to amend and they didn't even try they didn't even make an effort to satisfy these requirements and the supreme court has been clear the complaint has to provide sufficient details that permitted determination that the conduct and relief sought from the instate defendant