amount of twenty nine thousand dollars an argument of course is that there was an objective leave reasonable basis for removing this case as megha had done many times before excess fully and the existence of reasonable on the california law to remove it certainly yes under california law it was appropriate because the california cases concerning conspiracy and the agency issues that is whether or not an we're not saying that i think the distinction that the cases make you know order to define when it is that there can be a conspiracy between the agent in a principal is when the conspiracy has something to do with the agent seeking some independent tortious conduct not involving in the case of an insurance company what it is that the insurance company is supposed to do that was the case for example in the  s recognized in a cost ya know and in black in a situation where the alleged wrongful conduct that was the subject of fraud is something that involved what the insurers businesses in this case it wrongful if the agent for example in the unit in the equifax case you've got a whole bunch of entities conspiring together in order to have the insured examined by a doctor who falsifies the reports they can deny  benefits in that situation i think the heath factor here is you don't really have a conspiracy alleged by eight agent and a principal in that kind of a circumstance where misrepresentation was not advising the borrower that the bank really never intended to lend more money to the to the borrower in the future and when it failed to do so the borrower was hit with great general rule the an agent immunity and so we've got the same exact situation here your honor as we have in black because mr hammond as alleged over a dozen times in the complaint was acting as an employee exception to the immunity issue here the conspiracy allegation doesn't hold the other reason your honour's is because even if there was a conspiracy and if even if it was properly alleged and our point is it needs to be particularity within the complaint and it isn't when you've got a situation like that here you have to have something more to explain why it is that the claim wasn't brought sooner what was the last overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy that's what's required here the supposed last overt act with a telephone call that mr gardner made to the agent in two thousand and four ten years after they met for the first time in probably the only time concerning the policy so ten years later there's this call from the plaintiff himself that's the last over act ins in furtherance of the conspiracy at the an over active than this representation is carried on that but yes your honor but the way it's alleged in the complaint is that there was this concealment that when the call is made even before he's charged these additional premiums every year for ten years is made and there's a question about the validity of the premium increases that is really closer to the type of situation where you have a quote unquote concealment of a conspiracy after the conspiracy has been accomplished factual determination or a legal conclusion disagree your honor i don't believe the court was trying to do any fact finding it was stating based on the face of the complaint whether or not there potentially could be a claim there that would be sustained for conspiracy based on more recent case law and even the ricci case cited by the court supports our position there was a reasonable basis you have a eleven year gap between the meeting with the plaintiff and the agent and the filing of the cut is the argument that the court did not isn't even alleged as such in the complaint that the call in two thousand and four was the last over after in furtherance of the conspiracy the word conspiracy anywhere in the complaint is it does appear in the complaint but there are no facts specifically identifying when the conspiracy started what was done in furtherance of that and when the last overt act was it was anything identified as an overt act no you're wrong there's no separate cause of action for conspiracy or words to the effect which state what the over acts were it is your argument we had an objectively reasonable basis even though it might turn out there were wrong when you were in and when everything falls out and you take a look at all this conspiracy stuff we had an objectively rea sonable basis based on the complaint we were looking at for removal there are absolutely your honor because when you've got an eleven year gap it's under the case law it's the plaintiff's burden to allege facts showing why it is that the statute would be told that was the pla correct by judge for he terminated yes judge faith has dismissed the case on what grounds it was a terminating sanction for failure among other things to have mr gardner the plaintiff appear at his deposition and then violating he appear for his deposition the other point i wanted to make in that regard is that the recent case of the supreme court relied upon by judge cooper martin versus franklin recognizes that the purpose of these attorney feel wards is to deter improper removals like are stolen for the purpose of causing delay or cost to the other side but by the same token the court also recognizes that  party is expected to have an airtight case and airtight defense and that's the basis for the removal if that's the standard then that also would be improper because the courts should not deter proper it's unusual for court to do this it's not that it's done every day it's very unusual i think the way i conclude it your honour's is that reasonable minds make this disagree as to whether or not make this case was airtight on the statute of limitations  without even being denominated as such this two thousand and four unsolicited phone call was the last overt act of the defendants which in another tell i think it's at least  occurred when the dimmers were supposed to be argue the dimmers were in fact i appeared at that hearing and i told the court that we're following an amended complaint and it didn't make any sense to argue the dimmers whatsoever if you look at the minute order in the transcript there is a finding that alastor overt act was the continuation of collection premiums i got thirty seconds to find th you know you tell us that the other side benefits taken you're going to correct the record where is it you're on searching for it now period of time that he was insured also in october two thousand and four eleven months before the complaint was filed and it was based on his misrepresentations that the plaintiff continued to pay premiums but the  claims against the plaintiff none of them were barred by the statute of limitations ten years worries me as i read i read the analysis and it says well a california court could have could hold that overt act was committed could hold that this happened could hold that but this civil conspiracy theory was unnecessary for the court to base her decision on because we have allegations of fraud in the collection of premiums that occurred only eleven months before the play was filed so even if you read if you  which he wrote to the extent the october two thousand and four statements are actionable they constitute a separate tort so what's remarkable is this court would have to find that just cooper abused her discretion in finding that there were no claims played against the maunder first of the filing of the present action and if the call or any tax action taken there ever there after is found to be an overt act in furtherance then a california court could hold that the act i think the point is the court never i was looking for where the court actually