federal court jurisdiction over class actions in which there is minimum diversity jurisdiction as well as an aggregation of claims in the mom of five million dollars this court has also recognize that the exceptions to finding subject matter jurisdiction are to be narrowly construed against this backdrop this court should reverse the district court's remain an order for two fundamental reasons one the district court erred in remaining this case did not satisfy their burden of proving the local controversy exception under kaffir to the district court err every man in this case because plaintiffs did not satisfy their burden of proving that the home state exception actually applied under the class action fairness act and going to the first argument your honour's in ruling that the local controversy exception applied the district court failed to apply the correct legal standard which is  follows whether or not the same or similar factual allegations were made in other class actions against the non form defend it which in this case would be a ts instead the district court improperly applied a test of geographic and legal similarity specifically despite the fact that the local controversy exception is to be narrowly applied in construed the district court in its remand order proceeded to focus on the fact that this case the hundred case involves a violation of alabama state law where is the claims in the other cases which were cited in its atch to the brief filed with the district court i e watson out of texas leader out of new york goldberg and parker out of florida were based on other state laws or on federal law sees me counsel yet i want to act but i don't know how my colleagues they may want to hear more about this but for me personally i agree with you on this issue thank you ana but where i think you might where you have a problem at least with me and i need korean explained why it's not a concern is on the home state exception yes your honor be happy to address that we believe that attorneys fees and costs are sought by both defendants true in every case so everybody would be a primary defendant when it not well i don't know that that's the case that everyone would be a primary defendant however your honor the substantial exposure to significant portions of the proposed class  allegations specifically make reference to the fact that both defendants a t s as well as the city among gomery are quote unquote reaping the benefits from the alleged improper installation of the yellow the short l white intervals accent and they talk about a cash cow and they said that they do not plan to seek money damages from a t f at the present time we don't know what the substantial exposure is however the district courts that have looked at this issue as to who or who is not a primary defended also look specifically at the fact as to whether or not a defendant has been sued directly i e that that does fit it is not vicariously sued or that defendant is not sued on a secondary basis you're going to robson what's wrong with this order yes your honor but i think the primary difference in watson relates to the fact and in fact the fifth circuit in watts's specifically referred to the fact that there were fifty eight defendants in that case and the court specifically said that no one looking at that ruling and no one looking at the complaint in that case would say that all fifty eight defendants could be considered primary defendants is that term is either defined under the city committee judiciary report or under the relevant jurisprudence by various district courts across the united states here we are only dealing with two primary defendants a t s whom by the pla allegations actually installed the cameras maintain the cameras operated the cameras they are the ones that actually collect the find your honour's and based upon this specific statement in several of the district court cases which is marino not the officers doesn't traffic solutions take the videos to the cops and the cops decide whether the front two tires are over the line when you're like entrant what you want to that actually is not what the plaintiffs allege that the plane is actually allege in this suit similar in this case does make some distinction the fifth circuit specifically referred to the fact that there were a substantial number of defendants in all fifty eight of those defendants could not constitute for deemed to be a primary defendant for purposes here and i think it's allegations in the plaintiff's complaints were late to both defendants with the exception of one allegation where they are seeking monetary damages only from the city of mind i do not believe that the senate committee judicia report nor do i believe that the district court cases that have considered this issue a primary defend it makes clear that you have to undercut the fact that a t s is a primary defended and in fact more over your hono in light of the fact that the relevant jurisprudence specifically holds that any doubts any doubts concerning the application of one of the exceptions or to be resolved in favor of finding federal court jurisdiction your arthur the city only want to which is against type two yes that correct no i do not think that is correct your honor i believe that all of the assertions in all of the claims are made against both defendants with exception of the reason for money i mean there are number of allegations in the complaint where they only address the city of my gum or what many of the allegations also address both defendants in many of the allegations talk about a t s his role as we're not talking allegations i'm talking climbs focuses on the only other federal statute which attempts to define who or what a primary defendant is is the multi party multiform multi jurisdictional act and in the posse case the court specifically said  figure out who or what the primary defendant is you look at who is who has been sued directly so the fact that there is no contribution sought here the fact that there is no indemnification sorry here matter of law under the relevant case law here and in fact a middle district decision middle district of alabama decision from twenty eleven the adams case the court specifically talks about the fact that the complaint disperses light equally on all defendants both defendants are in this suit the plaintiffs are going after both defendants the only substantive difference relates to the fact that the plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages specifically only against the city of montgomery but they go after both defendants they seek attorneys fees and costs from both defendants they seek to clara turin injunctive relief against both defendants and i believe under the analysis by the senate judiciary committee report as well as the district court decisions in marino brooke the third circuit in for dinner which that makes clear that eighty ask is a direct defendant your honor and in fact in the merino decision the court even found that successor in interest to countrywide were primary defendants even though they were only successors in interest again the whole point is to define broadly and not narrowly your honor i see that my time is up and i would serve the rest of my time for  please go good morning little observation that the court will bear with me i've been practicing law forty five years i'm an active litigation practice i can't tell you how many arguments i've had to tell it level or motions at the trial level hundreds if not thousands of them but i'm going to say something to this court this morning in all those cases i've said before and that is i don't care what the act and we did that and i had to be candid with that code as i do with this court to tell you that i don't think the court has jurisdiction or should exercise jurisdiction under careful and like you judge rosenbaum i think the real issue in the real resolution of this case lies under the home state except i think but i came up with this saga actually standing in the hallway this morning i think i have the answer it is an  and standing in the hallway earlier i said to ms copeland what happens to this case if i stand in front of this panel and suddenly today i'm dismissing the claims against  and then it occurred to me that may well be the answer to who the primary defendant is and i asked the court to think about that with me for just a minute what happens if i dismiss that the volunt we're not going to pursue that point we are going after the constitutional and statutory validity of the of the manner in which this ordinance that authorize with the city to to operate these camps that is correct but we've made no claim against eighty it did is not dependant upon our claims against the city of m don't really need government to be able to go forward this case and after all these these years i've had in this profession i still learn things every day i try to learn something every day that is it was designed to address class actions that are of national significance in the home state exception is just one of the way of saying if it is a purely local matter covered by in state court and i think that's the very purpose and you know if i may on the question of whether this case has any national significance just out of curiosity i looked at the city among young where clearly this case it will impact only the city of miami how significant is that on one national basis i ask myself legal or not it's about whether this scheme as adopted in montgomery alabama thank you complies with alabama law in the way it was implemented and the way it is conducted that is a local controversy it does not impact what a t s can do in texas and new york and florida and the other forty nine states the other this case should be in federal court that's going to be fine with me i filed this lawsuit nearly two years ago and we haven't even gotten far enough along get an answer filed yet we've been jockeying around about which only be one primary defendant third of all your honor in response to mr fuller's comments the liability zero potential liability against a ts is not derivative it is very direct it's not like arius is not secondary they're not seeking contribution t cited cases in there in which there were medical monitoring claims and you can still be a primary defendant if there is not monetary relief sought against you fit your honor as relates to mr fuller's comments about this be simply a local controversy that only implicates or involves the state of alabama your honor we believe that we've outlined in our priest that this case has interested implications the main plaintiffs are citizens of alabama the class include citizens from other states a t s incorporated in kansas with this principle place of business in arizona it does business all around the country and the a t f has been sued in other class actions in other states with plaintiffs asserting the same or similar factual allegations favors federal jurisdiction over class actions the exceptions are narrow all doubts are to be resolved in favor of federal jurisdiction and the plaintiff failed to satisfy their burden in meeting the local controversy exception and the home state exception we but i'm asking do you want to pursue that poundstone is here on behalf of the city in my gunnery and i was arguing on behalf of both appellants so when i did make the comment as it related to the dismissal a t s i clearly was only speaking on behalf of a t s but we're certainly happy to speak with mr fuller