substantive issues and i really like to start with the jurisdictional issues following the filing this case in state court where it was removed under federal law on plate jurisdiction and i'd like to make a couple comments about  jurisdiction that i think help the understanding of what it is at least in my view and how it ought to be and should have been applied in this case under the federal enclave clause and this is sort of the st subsume point  essentially it doesn't confer jurisdiction by itself and what essentially does is it allows congress to then exercise jurisdiction over federal enclaves and this is a key point particular with response to the arguments raised and the the point that there is some i'm not sure of the right adjective essentially where there's in nonspecific use of the terms concurrent jurisdiction and if you look at germany and mater and a lot of these cases on the mainland when they were referencing concurrent jurisdiction what they're really referencing is that state courts are courts of general jurisdiction and can essentially always hear federal questions or federal issues in the state court removal for some other means in other words those can always be there and so many of these man lang cases where they used the phrase and for example in the major v holly and other cases relied on in durham those of state lands to the federal government and then those cases historically for them to determine the scope of jurisdiction what that does is it creates a vacuum law for torts and other cases and so essentially what happens in those situations is the federal long clay of under the exclusive jurisdiction adopts the state law as federal law and then not then supplies the threshold for a federal question jurisdiction but we haven't why is completely different and this is a different way for federal enclave jurisdiction to be created which is essentially where you have the admission of the state into the union and this case why in one thousand and fifty nine and so if you look at the enclave cause where it says that congress and exercise legislation it's clear that congress needs to do this and if you look at the admission clause the u s congress specifies the scope of jurisdiction for both the state and federal actors in this situation and it's sort of again improperly in my opinion certainly non specifically referred to as a strong current broad concurrent jurisdiction but if you really look what it's saying it says that the federal jurisdiction can be exercised by well as will this out of the night circuit exclusive legislation exclusive jurisdiction all these things concern sovereignty and so essentially what it's saying that the fed the reservation a federal authority but i don't necessarily think that the mater and will listen derm or not i think are applicable i think it's just where this this terminology of concurrent jurisdiction issues you need to be careful about what the appellate case is actually  stating and by the way your honor if you if you look back at the admission clause where you pointed out the conflicts language it goes beyond that it specifically says shall not prevent a y from exercising to the well what's the basis of federal d jurisdiction and essentially created in our view largely out of whole cloth these hypotheticals that the n f l a case this legislature this litigation might all it should be just direct application of hawaiian law and the reason is again this is this this is this key distinction that i'm glad we're having this discussion on these earlier cases when there is the sale of a federal on flavor of federal of land to the federal government to create a national park or a military installation in there is vacuum law essentially the federal enclave adopts the state law as federal law that's not what happened here following the admission the state of  legislates under the why revised statutes and adopts the common law of england and so that becomes the state law why and so the entirety of the claims that issue or why laws there is no d federal aspect to this case beyond sort of these frankly hypotheticals which now with the well even at that point were not raised under the notice or removal and certainly with the full record were never at issue and so the reason why the rules that are essentially the test is hypothetical test of implication that the trial for us why i think it's problematic aside from the fact that it of disarray it's the admission act and sort of why sovereignty and why our jurisdiction is how in the world are litigators or trial judges or college as supposed to apply it when you don't don't know what the issues might be a better court a trial court says could be implicated in the future and so by our of this history of concurrent jurisdiction for the state of hawaii and then some of the confusion on how these different terms are used within the cases historically and then how they apply to the actual d concurrent jurisdiction that's i go into this in quite a bit of detail there's those are really two separate analyses one has federal agency and the other is essentially we're at the direction of a federal officer but the federal officer stuff is really clear it has to be specific it's not enough to just be are managing member which is really for city exercise all of forty control and we cite some of that within our reply within the actual operating agreement that goes through the management control over  the operations and c v h as far as the lease of holmes and this kind of thing and certainly within respect to the day to day leasing negotiations going on as is theirs that they don't have employees they don't have an office it's for city a which is right next door and you can you can rent a home there and so for city is essentially a private why company that's competing in the market against other landlords in the same jurisdiction  leave and make money off the various leases in exchange for that it carries out the reconstruction and in this case also the secret remediation of soils on base your iris which is true that with respect to the federal agency there are multiple factors for the court to consider and not won or any one is dispositive and we walked through that analysis as far as the management control really the only one that that works or that is in their favor is that they didn't contribute money with respect to the initial operation in terms of the actual issues that are being litigated breach of lease between the landlord and ten the navy and on a really have little to nothing in certainly the navy has nothing to do with that with respect your honor to the point that i do want to finish on and i'll see my time's kind of a minute to the end is that the better rule raised are they actually disputed you know and then can they be resolved without doing injury to the storage state federal ballots and so that is the essentially the rule that we would like to see applied by the played out as you would predict where the trial court asserted jurisdiction rationally and our and our opinion and then immediately under a motion to dismiss throughout the unfair competition claim with this reading of business or property under under you mock which directly contradicts the statute itself which says you should look to federal interpretations of similar language as well as just frankly doesn't make any logical sense that you if you have unfair competition you don't have standing if you're only injured and the terms of your economic in terms of your money the whole point of unfair competition is recognized by the davis case which the trial court did not consider and in fact that there was no case why on this point directly addresses this issue to say unfair competition is supposed to be broader than the definition of consumer which the court used to essentially threw out the clam so i think this case is a very nice showing what happens when there's too rash of an exercise of federal jurisdiction particularly when there's rules in place that would allow state courts and state sovereignty to resolve the state claims thank you very much for your time today appreciate it i will give you some time for about oh thank you ultimately of modern is you back leave that in the enclave the law is federal and state all your lies to the extent it before but that rationale doesn't apply here because it's an out and so i don't find any more compelling precedent in those cases than what judge collins described her modder well let me take a step back then your honour's and talk a little bit about this idea of the federalized state law and i apply and why reserves its jurisdiction except to the extent that it conflicts with federal law so don't you have to suggest that these planes would conflict with federal law in order law exists and so there needs to be analysis of whether you are you arguing that becomes federal you're arguing these claims become federal common law claim because they're brought on on a federal on clay i'd say that that analysis hathi place and that's what gives that's one of the things that give rise to better stick here now in the spirit with the plaintiffs provides for the application of hawaii law i'm having a little trouble trying to figure out what the federal question here isn't as the question i posed to go and i don't know that i'm any closer to hearing an answer to the question then when you started all right what the federal question so let me take a step back that yours a this was a white state law claims become better and that seems to be the only theory that would need support the there being a better question i think that that is correct or honor and i think that for instance mr smith spoke a little bit about the unfair methods of competition law and so in the lawsuit we were able to get that issue dismissed on a legal basis that we think about was the correct decision had we not what we would have argued is that the unfair methods of competition law didn't apply answered i think you said you didn't agree with my position but then use it you're suggesting that durham we take it i mean that's the problem with the statement in federal court now federal jurisdiction over  i don't think that stick to it in this instance where it's saying this is how you should look at the case going forward that may be a little bit of a fine point your honor but what i don't think about necessarily satisfies the definition of data here but i wonder if i can kind of take care of this issue by changing the brain work that we're looking at this a little bit what i'd like to talk a little bit about is just trying to give us a framework that supports the district court base here are let me just take a step back from disrupt the state federal balance now the lane in which the grable and the gun use is federal issue not a federal law or a piece of federal legislation federal issue and numerous directly or honor because it puts it issue the entire housing portfolio for that military base as it can be a shoe the way that you have marketed the borg polio to individual marines and their families it does not put it to shoot the safety that's the soil contamination problem and that's not ruined by the lawsuit that's driven by this oil contamination problem i bet your brief outline all sorts of horrible things that might happen to the navy but i don't see any of them driven by the law so they're driving by the underlying conditions your honor the position taken by the plaintiffs in this case is that they were unsafe conditions at military a marine corps base hawaii and that those unsafe conditions make it federal interest if the federal government allows specifically allows their their personnel to live on the base rock that you might have a better argument if they required all  i have left st off is that there are a series of cases most of them come up in the context of railroad situations and these cases by that there is a federal question are a federal issue where there's a significant impact on a on federal interest that aren't necessarily legal and those same sorts of interest exist here where you have a right to really interest in your brain was correct because if you look at g and you don't even have not identified and he said federal question or let me respectfully disagree without your honor and i would think that there's been a myriad of circuit court cases since grable when guns were decided to go contrary to that i think one of the most recent cases of the city of oakland case did believe the court did not find federal jurisdiction in there but it did note that federal issues could in certain circumstances be sufficient to justify federal jurisdiction i have very and what i wanted to make the point i really want to make about federal officer jurisdiction is that under the  that the direction one very specific direction that was given here is how much he's going to be charged for by the basic allowance for housing to set up the target of defense on a annual basis on a myriad of bacteria is that right i thought i thought that that doesn't set the rental rates that just says that the navy will give a certain amount for housing allowance and it can be used like for example of ohana went up double the rental rate you know it's a service member  the housing allowance is going to be and charges that amount they take the max amount they can but i don't think the pentagon is turning doha on it and say well what are your issues that cause us to change what the housing allowance is going to be so i don't understand the connection to this lawsuit judgement that you had on exactly the point that i want to make that they do not turn to ohana to ask about question based at the ra create a dead horse so that's right it did you have any other points here let me just make a final point then that i think that if there are these sorts of back to all questions about whether federal officers jurisdiction exists but i think the lindsey v is some basis for jurisdiction before you throw all that out and you have the inhibitions the of restarting and hayes and so if there are these sorts of questions about federal officer issues i think we could definitely address them at the district court level and if your request jurisdictional discovery we did not your honor and if i may just answer that very briefly the night sort of this is and leaves the crane so that there's two ways that you can contest federal me take your factual issue let's assume for the moment that it is the case that the housing allowance effectively controls the ramp how is this lawsuit going to impact that be that they were induced to enter an agreement they would not have otherwise entered now you could argue that well we can remedy this by cutting the price a little bit although i think that's going to be kind of tough in a so contamination case but that simply is a matter of of what's the appropriate remedy i don't see any impact on the housing allowance so i'm having trouble understanding the federal interest that you keep saying is is implicated here i don't see how to obscure the fact of the oil contamination i don't see how the house setting the amount of the housing allowances anything to do with the allegations against donna will respect that he wasn't  active a federal officer following orders from the federal government that's what you need for the federal office there is not what do you want to let me address what let me respond to that by addressing it  don't raise earlier today one of those questions was you know does want to have to get the government's approval for a construction contract do we have to get the government's approval well you know for the form of our lease and i think again there hasn't been discovery on these issues because of the facial challenge to them but to the extent there are questions like that you know my understanding is that the facts will show that absolutely the federal government or the navy is approving the leas the agreements to be consistent with the agreements is not the same as saying that you were compelled by the agreements fared correct with respect to remediation issues but i don't think it's correct with us back to issues such as disclosure so as i referenced earlier my understanding for instance is that the   is approved and as handed in drafting the form of the leads here the allegation is about we should have had additional disclosure about the soil issued so i do think you would have a direct connection in those issues now we didn't get into that because there there's sort of confusing language concurrent jurisdiction you would also add in federal issue federal question if you look at that gun variable line of cases it's pretty clear they're talking about federal question and gun that was th  knew of the lease or set the b h but this litigation doesn't you know we're trying to apply the lease and we're not trying to change b h you know for our families the issue is you know what are the damages leasing something different than what we thought it was and just the fundamental issue that we should you know when we show up and we lease a home and we want to know what's under the home and around the home and that's kind of the fundamental i certainly don't think so i mean just from the standpoint of this is not a secret related litigation that barbara litigation has gone up and down to the night circuit on two other occasions the navy arm of the navy is one of the obviously a non managing member at ohana and so it kind of ties into the earlier appellate argument that that your honour's had in the prior one where it says at some point you know you can't just sit and you got to take a position and so ask in the navy of what they might want to pop in here frankly it would really just add in my mind insult to injury when it's a state of why i created the law following admission and that's one point maybe i should just point out this fall in the admission then why legislated and adopted the common law so this isn't a situation like some of the mainland cases of earlier federal enclaves where there is a preexisting body of state law property gets sold and then that gets pulled in and creates federal questions it's one hundred percent different the situation so that's a roundabout way way of saying no judge i don't think the navy  has anything to add on any side of this case again i greatly appreciate your time today and unless there's another question any other questions i don't see any so thank you very own go ahead thank you i repeated the only thing i was going to say is that it's difficult for a private party to get the navy to comment on anything if he believes it would be helpful to get the navy input then i would