however your honors i want you to remember three things is why this case as we believe should remain in federal district court for the district connecticut and why that want to remain issued by the connecticut just record is in fact reviewable by your hono to state court as chief so eloquently states quote the federal system routinely handles for closure matters unquote furthermore there is diversity of citizenship between the parties and the amount  controversy exceeds seventy five thousand dollars nobody disputes this the reality is the case should never have been remanded to state court and federal court should be jealous over their jurisdiction your client never objected to remain and in two thousand and twelve that's correct your honor and litigated for several years in state court in connecticut you are i would state that mr carer's at that point time was under represented he did not know of what was happening and he was under represented he did have counsel but he was never advised of the fact that the want to show cause was presented to him at that point so he was unaware of the fact that this was happening  district court issued orders to show cause despite there being complete diversity of citizenship between the parties in the amount of controversy was in excess of thirty five thousand and j p morgan been pressing the notion every man that this was really in essence a state m that it was more appropriate in this day and district court so it basically you know that there's some inconsistency there is your honor second your honor this court does have the ability to review remand orders that are the result of suicide bomb two orders of the court rather than a motion of any party which is what occurred here no party in this case ever asked for this case to be sent back to  and that there's a significant difference because the reality is your honour's is that this particular case was appropriately cited in federal district court and should never of got incident back but nevertheless the district court made a decision to file it on or show cause and decided to send it back so as ponting without any particular motion chase does assert in their briefs obviously as your honor said that they did follow in response to that saying that it was most appropriate  reexamine foreclosure yes your honor because the fact of matter is is that he was never able to fully elucidate or receive any kind of discovery in this matter and it's our position that the case good morning your honour's i'm attorney brian rich i'm here with logan carducci i represent the plaintiff happily j p morgan chase may please the court your honor i agree with counsel that this has been a long strange journey and i'd just like to highlight a few points along the way of that journey this case was originally remanded by the connecticut district court and i believe september of two thousand and twelve after judge bryant the judge and that case had issued  an order to show cause to which only j p morgan chase responded essentially indicating its assent to the fact that the matter should be remanded to the state court for approximately four years the matter continued to be pending in state court i believe there was some interruption due to bankruptcy stayed that particular point in time until two thousand and sixteen when mr carer's attempted to remove the matter to the southern district of new york alternately that was remanded by judge daniels of the southern district in two thousand and sixteen and in two thousand and seventeen of course which gives rise to the instant appeal mr kerry's attempted to remove the case again this time in the district of connecticut and it's not without coincidence or not without coincidence that both of these events happened on the eve of state court trial proceedings just ask one point of information does j p morgan chase dispute that there is again these events all occurred on the eve of foreclosure trials to tortured procedural history that implicates the federal courts all coincidently happens when state court events are taking place i would note for the record counsel's assertion that discovery was not available in the state court i believe is simply without merit there would certainly ample opportunity for discovery mr kerik was represented during much of the state court proceedings by counsel now turn into the sort of instant issue the you're saying in the state court proceeding you know if constraint that would have prevented him from obtaining that kind of discovery about the legitimacy or validity authenticity of those documents that were the basis for the foreclosure absolutely not your honor in august of two thousand and seventeen when mr karens removed the action again to the district of connecticut a judge paul as your honor noted issued an order to show cause j p morgan i believe on the same day requesting a telephonic status conference mr kerry subsequently filed motions for extension of time to respond to the motion to order cause j p morgan objected on august st within the thirty day window from the  removal indicating that it believes the matter should be remanded and long story short there were a lot of pleadings along the way but a very long story short judge paul responded one week later remanding the matter to the state court the alleged procedural defect at issue here is whether judge hall had the authority to do that beyond the thirty days and referenced within the statutes in the st instance i would submit that in fact j p morgan did file what can functionally be termed as a remain and request granted for the reasons i believe your honor identified it was not styled as a formal motion for remained but it was clearly a request for the district court t the matter to the state court that was pending clearly the case law i believe all the act in case law in the briefing provides that that's appropriate that a judge do that in the case of a timely filed remained disregarding however even if you do not accept the proposition that judge hall or if you accept the proposition i should say that judge paul did that to respond to despite the fact that j p morgan chase had requested remand i believe that it's incumbent upon mr carers to show something more as to why the order was flawed and he simply can't judge paul's decision list i believe three bases for why remands appropriate in this case she indicates that there is no federal question jurisdiction she indicates the law of the case that judge bryant had already decided these issues some five years earlier so hard decision is very well reasoned in that regard and i want to get to just the rd point because i realize i'm running out of time which is the practical effect i believe your honor asked what the end game is here in the endgame if i'm following what kerik is seeking is to undo a state court foreclosure judgment that's presently pending with the connecticut appellate court which raises to say the least a host of hurdles  state federal federalism concerns the record feldman doctrine the anti injunction act just to name a few of the plethora of procedural obstacles to doing so so for all of those reasons your honor i request that the district court's order be upheld