the helen tire weighs international when i think about this case i wonder how many bites at the apple or at the same apple does a party get what this case is about i plaintiff who had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue of subject matter jurisdiction in the states or perry or court under the foreign sovereign immunity that the plaintiff los and for months later he filed an identical action in federal court the district court notwithstanding the state courts order dismissing the case and finding that the act subject to the foreign sovereign immunity as act and over which the court had no jurisdiction nevertheless found otherwise the facts of this case are rather simple my client was sued default that had been erroneous lee entered the court granted both motions determined that the my what the state court case correct are correct the court granted both motions pursuant to a detailed minute order which can be found at excerpts fifty four and fifty five of the excerpts of record the notice of that ruling was given in writing and filed in the superior court no further action was required in the case the case had been dismissed the four months later in february after the time to appeal had expired the plaintiff filed the identical lawsuit in federal court the only difference was the plaintiff out of the jurisdictional allegations albion's in correct jurisdiction allegations the jurisdiction over my client arose under the foreign sovereign immunity zakk not under diversity of citizenship that motion finding we believe in correctly that the principles of race to the college do not apply to jurisdictional matters only to the merits of the lawsuit the law in california and it has been this way before you go on forever urge and i and i understand the distinction that you're making but but the underlying motion was to dismiss under the foreign sovereign immunity zakk the court had decided that the state court had decided that issue and seen reason you're saying we can inquire into that underlying order well because the state court made the determination already so the appeal is not about sorry to bar a few it is about sovereign immunity to the extent that it was previously decided by the state court that's how i would frame and i mean it it to you to ignore this or to find that this order is not appealable would put my client and other other parties a case you'd be dealing with a prior state court determination you know in a judgment or some other matter not having to do with the jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter of the controversy so and yes that's true that's raised by affirmative think the simple answer that question is no so with that i will submit reserve my time ok ok that's not what i'm so and the other the other reason is that since the defendant had attempted to file the removal papers to the federal court i imagine that that's where they wanted to be anyway so i figured ok well why go ahead and either follow motion for reconsideration or appeal if in the end we're going to we want to be in federal court which is a form that i would rather be in anyway so under those circumstances we decided to go ahead and file the complaint in federal court you say that defendant has filed removeable papers in the state court action yes what has happened to that that automatically removes the  in doing a little bit of research to meet them more specifically what happened is that my office was served with removal notice however when the matter was heard in state court it appeared from the record in the state court position of removal has been funneled in federal court are you saying that it's a jurisdictional requirement of the removal actions of federal court that the state court received knows that was my and it was done after the ruling by the state court was that approved by the federal court judge you have a recollection of that there's no record actually i don't there not only that i have recollection but the court didn't do anything in that respect at any rate you didn't pursue an appeal in the state system you don't have basis that the order that the supreme court made was wrong or that spirit court didn't have any no not specifically i think we went to federal court because we thought that federal court also had jurisdiction and based on the case of this is gray dealing with this issue of whether that was a final order or again and again even in the latest case of exxon mobil in the case that it's very limited in doesn't apply to this situation one correction on the fact is that my client was not flying from calcutta he was actually in bangkok at the time when the incident happened next with respect to the on jurisdictional motions parties were able to simply relive it gave those issues over and over and over again and the end might be court i don't know why the case one as many times as it did but it had to do with personal jurisdiction it was litigated too dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction my client had to make a factual showing that it was a qualified as a foreign sovereign under the foreign sovereign means act on the burton felt of the plaintiff the opposing party to demonstrate facts that showed that would be advantaged if you would submit letter briefs simultaneously within twenty days of today addressing simply and only the issue whether this first order of the district court denying a motion to dismiss under section  the one is an appealable order under the circumstances of this case and please when i talk about circumstances of this case i mean circumstances of this case that are of