complaint under federal law which invoked the district court's original jurisdiction so the amended complaint replaced the state claim with a federal claim the district court dismissed on the doctrine of derivative jurisdiction under that rule were true stiction as lacking in the original action in state court the federal court does not acquire jurisdiction by removal of the rules been criticised in many cases including but this court is serving no in i think in many cases there could be your honor and in this case i'm sure that we would deal with that argument i can think of arguments on both sides for and against it but i don't think those are necessarily before the court there's absolutely cases where the dismissal from dismissal and requirement to file a new case would have a statute of limitations cuts and to be famous or fact and i wasn't suggesting that it would be a problem for you i was just thinking more broadly about consequences of the rule apart from filing yesterday that is another counsel and in light of that consequence i think the courts rule as stated in tamar versus department is the window since it is a procedural flaw in the complaint would it make sense to treat it with a thirty day timeline where the opposing party has to raise it much like in one thousand four hundred and forty seven other procedural the facts have to be identified and that gives a window and then beyond that as we said and wrote us says the ship  sailed i don't know that the best answer to that and i don't think it's presented in this case i think that something like a thirty day rule for the claimant this claims processing rule to be applied would be appropriate in this case we're not raising any sort of way for like what was raised in wrote us what we're saying in this case is that because it's a claims processing rule it doesn't have the jurisdictional effect of  barring the original case without filing a new case but i guess what i'm saying is it seems to me that within that thirty days the doctrine of derivative jurisdiction may require a  it's our position that that is what hammer said that if derivative jurisdiction is a bar to the case as removed the plaintiff is entitled to modify the complaint and the court language is cut out the intermediate step between dismiss of the case and filing a new one and to the extent the argument is that allowing an amendment is an end run around the bar i don't see why that's a different to saying that filing a new case is end run around the bar and i think that the possibility of filing a new case is why there's so much criticism of the doctrine but where there's really no difference between filing a new case and filing an amended complaint especially here where the new filing would be exactly identical to the amended complaint it wouldn't be reformulated in anyway well i'm not defending derivative jurisdiction you don't get iran but i mean we are we are stuck with it and if the theory of derivatives restriction is that there is no suit there was no civil action to be removed and under that theory there would be a difference and there would be some class of cases in which the statute of limitations would be a problem and so the plaintiffs would have been penalized for choosing the wrong forum for the requirement of having to file a new complaint and a hammer misstated the give a statement that i read to you before and relied on a similar statement in broadus which itself relied on earlier case a pair of verses archer daniels midland which applied this well established principle that an amended complaint supersedes earlier pleadings and if we were dealing with something that was this jurisdictional absolute bar i don't think applying that to say amendment is proper would work but here where it's this claims processing rule having just applying that and the rule about amended complaints is logical as as the court said in hammering the other cases i don't have maybe i can get you that in rebuttal i my recollection is that there was an agreement that was there was a status hearing before the district court judge and the parties and the judge agreed that plaintiff would violent amended complaint but i don't think that was ever address the question of whether the amended complaint was sufficient and how could you explain how you think we should deal with the statutory textual difference returning to root jurisdiction between section one thousand four hundred and forty one yeah we're congress did act to allow this in in cases other than those against the federal government and one thousand four hundred and forty two so the court's already held and we don't contest that the drift jurisdiction bart does apply to a case removed under the statute that this case was removed under such that question is not is not before the court the question is now that the tour of jurisdiction bar applies  we're asking the court to follow the language and hammer saying that an amended complaint cures that and how do you plan to deal with the social security statutory and regulatory provisions that were being told prevent judicial review here well the  issues that present it because the government has not raised it on appeal my my understanding about what i believe the argument below is going to be is that we are not arguing about a social security decision under all those regulations what issue here is mr ritchie's parental rights to act as guardian for his daughter and that's separate from social security's decision under their rules and regulations of whether he can be the representative payee that there are two different questions about do we designate him as the representative payee under social security rules and are we willing to even speak to him as guardian of his daughter under state law and that's that's across america question that it wasn't dealt with below and hasn't been raised in this court and if there are other questions i'll reserve forty seconds i have left please  congress isn't titled state what courts can hear cases against the united states through the doctrine of sovereign immunity the supreme court states that through the doctrine of derivative jurisdiction when if they court lacks jurisdiction the federal court requires none upon removal although in a suit counter the thirty years of supreme court precedent nor this court's precedent and it's important to note that the defense was not the result of any briefing because the doctrine of derivative jurisdiction was not properly before the court in hammer it was simply remanded to the court the doctrine so it was not the result of a contest the briefing and it was defeated in the case this court should use this as an opportunity to clear up the misleading defector dicta and hammer that has caused a lot of extra work for the district courts in the united states future plaintiffs as well and make things easier for them dismissal so what is the standard here is it just kind of when concerns of finale and efficiency et cetera so you've gone through discovery at that point do you get a dismissal any do you have to dismiss  refile already have a chance to file an amended complaint at that plane i mean it seems to me that if we're going to we have to try to reconcile wrote us which says at some point driven if jurisdiction falls by the wayside and it's waived its claims processing and the fact that we still have to give derivative jurisdiction some teeth because we're bound by the precedent so it seems to me that right now what we're left with is right as the saying that you know concerns of finality and efficiency once you've gone to judgment couns favor of just saying to bad so sad here you are at the very beginning when does it become i wrote a situation for my understanding of wrote if it was it have to be raised before the trial court it did not give any  indication when along in the trial court process f b i in this case it was raised in the very st response of pleading so wherever the court draws that line the united states in this case is far far in front swan thank you i don't have anything to add except to state that procedurally the a method complaint was filed under rule fifteen a within twenty one days of the motion to dismiss