case and to clarify the issues before the court will be to just focus on two pages of appellant excerpts of record excerpt of record one twelve an excerpt of record one thirteen again from appellants excerpts of adopting the magistrate's report and recommendation unless granting plaintiff's motion to remain and and first if i may please direct your honor's attention to excerpt of record one twelve which was page four of the district court's order line  that would be on line number ten and following your honor there the district court found that quote the first amended complaint eliminated the federal claim and added state claims that increase the amount of controversy and then found quote that the parties are citizens of different states and quote and then found that if the new claims had been alleged in the original complaint federal jurisdiction could have been invoked on diversity grounds and citing to twenty u s c thirteen thirty two in other words your honors as the district court properly found the versity jurisdiction existed jurisdiction based on the first complaint rather than the first amended complaint your honor we do not believe that it was clear we believe that the clear ground for a federal court jurisdiction in the original complaint was possible in washington is it clear that there wasn't diversity jurisdiction i believe that the mr core properly found that the first amended complaint was was the clarifying document to then show that no one answered my question as stiction is it is it clear to the only question here has to do with the amount of controversy not with this ship of the parties is that correct your honor ok is it clear to us from certain put in those terms that under the first complaint that you did not have the amount of controversy we do not believe that the amount in controversy clearly exceeded seventy five thousand dollars in the original complaint was that it was very very a prayer for relief no there was not your honor in terms of it being a specific monetary prayer the respondent points out in his briefing that there was a language about eighty million dollars but the analysis there and a potential of eight hundred class members but the announces there is more akin to a castle analysis where we're looking at the aggregate possibilities for amount of controversy as a raft of labor code claims added including labor code to allow three for waiting time penalties in labor code two thousand and six for itemized wage statement and three to four other labor code claims in addition to that there were  and exemplary damages then claimed in the first amended complaint both of which work together to clarify for us that the court's jurisdiction original federal question was fortified with the existence of diversity jurisdiction now with a clear amount controversy above seventy five thousand but you certainly could have alleged diversity as an alternate grounds in your in your motion for removal we could've done that your honor you're correct we do not believe that there is any law requiring a party an amended notice of removal after the first amended complaint because amended notices of removal are limited to situations where there are defects in the removal as opposed to a proper removal which we filed under federal  so the district court did find and that's my next point if i may on excerpt of record one thirteen lines for the district court we believe correctly found you citing tonights are cases of arco and rockwell that the ability to amend is limited to those amendments to correct a technical defect in the position amendments which add a new basis for removal jurisdiction are not permitted so which it's appellants contention your view that we believe under under existing one circuit law particularly the brockman view marriage bank case that that is indeed true and then also combined with that arco and rockwell which say amended notices removal for anything other than a technical defect are not permitted and so we have a recent case called lively versus wild markets have you seen that yes your honor relevance i don't believe the case was was filed by either side as an additional  of authority your honor but but i believe that that case is distinguishable because what we have here is a unique situation where the first amended complaint created the diversity jurisdiction in a case already properly removed on another ground and it is at that point a point granting all of that that the district court later an excerpt of record one thirteen then creates this extra task statutory creature  supplemental notice of removal which is not provided for by any statute nor by any one circuit case and in fact the case cited by the court for that proposition that creation of the supplemental notice of removal actually was a case where the fo circuit refused to remain and saying that while a supplemental notice of removal may have been prudent it was certainly not required so the appellant is not aware of any authority for subtle national notice of removal and frankly believes that the creation of such a creature such a procedural creature on x or statutory grounds by the district court is a violation of the rules enabling act and in fact the district court has no authority to create an well i believe judge kozinski it's actually much more fatal to us than victor because what the court did what the district court did was say yes diversity jurisdiction exists and we can then move into a discretionary balancing using such factors as overcrowded docket to get rid of this case when the original jurisdiction according to the ninth circuit's brockman is mandatory and diversity jurisdiction is a type of that from a as you we could have your honor we don't believe it was required and we believe at that point it was unclear and it would have been superfluous we were properly in federal court on federal question ground ask any of those things whether it was required the fact honor i guess that that's to file a notice of removal and throw in all possible grounds when in fact they don't appear on the face of the complaint and may not even be proper we believe create that class why i asked you counsel as to whether there was a prayer for relief or whether was clear to what some certain what the original amount of controversy was your answer to me was no on both accounts so it would have taken a lot of speculation on your point on your part and if you had been if you had been the drafter of that complaint and filing it as plaintiff's counsel and decided to file it in federal court you surely could have made all kinds of arguments that the amount of controversy was satisfied for purposes of filing it in federal court in the first place it would have taken a lot of imagination to figure it out that you could have alleged that as additional grounds for removal and very successfully because if the if the if the other side to come if mr williams to come back in and said oh no there's no diversity that would be ridiculous that was only our alternative grou that's that's all very correct in that and why haven't you a the argument the argument the argument hasn't been waived because there's never been a period and during which we were allowed to file sure this why did you wa ste when you filed the first notice of removal and didn't allege the ground because at that point we don't believe the diversity jurisdiction was clear from the face of the complaint nor do we believe that parties required to file suit profile is grounds for removal but counsel generally if you're filing a complaint in federal court you have to allege allege all your grounds for jurisdiction and if you leave one out and it turns out that the original ground you allege was defective then then what happen the cases of brockman in bucknor had that very situation your honor where the basis for removal was removed from the case and yet the federal court kept the can so i've asked a different question if you filed the case if you filed a complaint in federal court and in new york in your statement of jurisdiction you have alleged one ground but not another and your first and your original ground turns out to be defective what happens in that case when you have failed to allege an alternate groundlessly diversity  if you if you when you're going to federal court you have to let your jurisdiction you know if you've alleged if you feel less federal question jurisdiction and thirteen thirty one and didn't allege section thirteen thirty two what happens when thirteen thirty one turns out to be a defective ground but it looks like you might have an alternate route which you have failed to allege we we would we believe that if diversity jurisdiction existed there and the district court were aware of it it would be compelled to keep the case in federal court on the basis of that original jury even if you haven't alleged any place in your in your complaint until that nobody on the other side has had a chance to respond to that well those those facts are very different i guess than what we have here where where everyone agreed that there was diversity jurisdiction in the district court assume diversity jurisdiction and yet still apply discretion in in contradiction to the holding of brockman ok his statement with respect to the complaint original complaint not in clear as we saw below with the district court cosco alleged we were formed shotty however the original complaint could not have been more clear i disagree damages on behalf of eight hundred people we gave them an estimate of the amount of we gave cosco an estimate of the amount of hours the employees work per week over fifty they had in their possession the payroll records which they proved to the district court they could well established strict construction against removal jurisdiction fourteen in addition statute fourteen forty six not how those are how people i mean it's one thing to say if in doubt about the basis for the if you know for exists there's no construction that needs to be done the only thing missing is a mention of the second on the moon no those i think it matters because because we're not just looking at original subject jurisdiction but removal jurisdiction and with removal jurisdiction it doesn't matter if it isn't the be all and all that the original jurisdiction exists it also matters what's said in the notice removal and how it of strict construction against group jurisdiction and fourteen forty six which indicates that but we have a case you know that this properly in federal court that has that has meets all the requirements for federal jurisdiction i don't see where where you get those folks to move this quick construction business or what but how it helps you i would suggest and i don't a case and perhaps it's the court suggested earlier this may be that case but i would i would say that we could derive from the well established rule that a law prevents or disallows amendment to a notice removal that states additional grounds for jurisdiction after the initial thirty day period doesn't mean a whole lot that will may not mean a whole lot unless in cases like this case the failure to plead that additional basis for jurisdiction cannot be invoked by a party if the original basis for jurisdiction let's say diversity jurisdiction where a ninety percent party is added at some point basically you have how do you that the the rules suggest ords or state explicitly that federal question jurisdiction exists when the f b i see it sued they properly removed that that case presumably under the limit of just a federal entities no i don't think i would but i would say that they properly removed it probably under four hundred forty one a and i the case doesn't say it but i wondered and perhaps assume possibly that the r t c may have had consent to that removal if that's not the case then the the fact is that original jurisdiction did lie in the federal court after even after in certain certain circumstances for instance with you know the federal i forget the name of the case just a few months ago when a federal actor ensued yeah i hard to do i don't disagree and i would add however that i believe cosco had a second opportunity to file some document in this case not a supplemental notice which is we don't need to reach that an notice which the court by the way to page i thought it was one thirteen but if it doesn't have to it doesn't matter that and do it if it's not required to do it i mean the fact that do you have another way of doing it with  is is a you know sort of academic true in this case may decide whether it is a required act and i would say my only suggestion would be on a policy ground which is the fact that cosco admits that by the first medic complaint it knew about it would it have not been appropriate to take a permit of steps which would have been required to do in the first instance to affirmatively invoke that jurisdiction equiv it chose not to and correct particularly thirty seconds i believe that this quote from brockman answers all three of your various questions to me and to my opposing counsel were guarding i was there was a possibility a waiver and then how do we get around brockman and did somebody make a mistake in the quote from brockman is as follows talking about the r t c the party which did in fact leave its right to removal brockman says although the r t c waived its right to seek removal it did not waive its right to a federal forum the district court retention of the case was mandatory not discretionary believe that that sums up the controlling authority in the one circuit we respectfully ask that your honors reversed the remain an order and return this case the district for thank you