find this case really hard and the reason i find it hard is it seems like the statute says one thing once or says the opposite and it's really hard to reconcile and the best i can do is to say if your claim for injury or loss of property is less than the car mack amendment number follow hunter and if it's more follow the statute that's they can do and that would mean you period of time to the best of our knowledge they were not at the time we filed the complaint and since filing the complaint has not been any damage to the goods in any significant amount there were some anytime you leave goods for two years in a warehouse or it's go lee use the protection of the karmic dement to obtain possession of the goods and then export money from the customer to obtain return of those goods that's the grab a man of the that is right gets under your theory if they extort money from her but her goods are pristine she can bring a fraud case in state court however if they start money farmer and destroy her goods then she stuck all she can get it's a declared value of her goods that seems to be the law it sounds but if you think about it i think it can't be supported that that is the law because both parties are going and know that if there is damage to the goods and a problem with the goods center upon the goods your relief is limited to the value of those goods if you can insure the jurisdiction is that there's a federal question presented presented by virtue of current economic preemption of the entire area of law as well as the tariff dispute that is raised in the four corners of the complaint and of helen's original recognized by the damage to personal property although there is no specific dollar amount alleged within the converted although well it's not i'm getting there your honor the advantage allegations the claim that the property that was converted by north american van lines had a value of five hundred thousand dollars that's fifty times jurisdictional minimum of a car mack a minute claim and that is contained in sixteen and nineteen of the complaint she was obliged to the sentences point it was therefore obliged to return to san francisco at her expense to negotiate the release of her furniture clothing and personal effects all of which were valued in excess of five hundred thousand that's what you're relying on and part your honor there's also another passage which were the allegation of the property damages contained it paragraph fifteen of the complaint  your honor of the also there's another allegation which which falls within the printed ambit of carbon act is the amounts that were allegedly extorted those claims that the damages or those funds were extorted from park is also a claim which is governed by karma act that's the mccarthy got a claim in excess of ten thousand dollars if you include her claims other than for injury and damage to her property the car makea act jurisdictional amount is only if the matter of controversy exceeds ten thousand dollars the car max liability section of the carrier is why of all four actual lost or injury to the property so what i'm wondering is does it matter that her claim to exceed five hundred when the amount of liability for injury or loss actual loss of the property itself is less than ten thousand dollars i'm trying to figure out what to do with hunter because we can overrule it were a three judge panel i understood your hon the interpretation of the bill of lading for the interstate shipment of goods which is governed exclusively by federal law to the exclusion of any and all state law claims which supplements expand or  carmack a man with because you get the consequential damages including the fraud and extortion on the other hand you don't i don't understand consequential damages are specifically recoverable within the beneficial case a two thousand three united states supreme court case direct all courts with regard to the issue of complete preemption and states that the proper inquiry focuses on whether congress intended the federal cause of action misappropriated we have here a claim that arises out of alleged misfeasance or maladies that is limited to the handling of the damage claim i'm sorry i thought hunter reported at least to speak much more broadly than that knox and limit i think you need to fill in some blanks here thank you i'll be there my best you know i court's question is well taken it's one that i considered from day one how do we get around the fact that my client has been subject to egregious intentional conduct which is violent state law and assert that claim in federal court when in issues if the new ones they cite new ones of the case involving more than ten thousand dollars all of the group relied on are involved twenty five hundred dollars federal court can't deal with there's no jurisdiction going have to get to this questions to whether the counsel suggestion if you can a manager you could have amended to have all of your claims heard in this particular case i thought about it the court asked us to leave them and i could be that there has to be drew's picture apparent on the page of the complaint i submit that there is no jurisdiction apparent on the face of the complaint the quote was pathetically crafted with that in mind and only amendment that we would have made would have been through