and thirty one the federal courts view this case as being filed in the western district of louisiana on the date it was actually filed in the eastern district of texas it was actually filed in the eastern district of texas before the one year and a prescriptive period ran therefore the federal courts view this case as being filed in the western district of louisiana a court of competent venue and jurisdiction mandates this particular result the st is that federal then you transfer statutes like one thousand six hundred and thirty one dollars must be applied regardless of whether they cause any conflict with state law the nd is that the lower court's decision that section one thousand six hundred and thirty one dollars only applies to federal timing issues runs counter to the plain language of the statute and to the intent behind jurisdiction within that statute such that it should apply to both subject matter and personal jurisdiction turning to my st point your honor which is that one thousand six hundred and thirty one and other federal venue transfer statutes must be applied regardless of any conflict with state law the supreme court has told us in burlington northern railroad company that if there isn't a political and valid federal statute that it must be applied this is a two part analysis the st thing we look at is whether the statute is sufficiently broad to cover the point that is before the court the point that is before the court in this case is when and where was this case file thirty one it speaks directly to that point and says the federal court must view the case as being filed in the transferee court on the date it was actually filed in the transfer or court whether it is quote rationally capable of being classified as a procedural statute if you question yes from when i take it you found originally in federal court in the eastern district of texas correct on and at the time and then the trucking company countered with a motion to dismiss for lack of specific you're a sick corrector well he's saying no but anyway like the judge would have evaluated interest of justice differently if the judge had been aware six thousand and thirty of the thirty four dollars so you're out of the magistrate judge pain at the time no i don't think he would have done it any differently i think he waited the interest of justice and you don't want this case dismissed and it should stay alive they advocate sending it back to north carolina no one other that i know of actively advocated it been filed at the time it was originally filed but in the transferee court those two things that must obtain or one they want of jurisdiction and two that is in the interests of justice as soon as the lower court found those two and thirty one with its mandatory compulsory language came into play by operational law congress said this is what we want to happen if these two things obtain secondly the western district of louisiana erroneous so rule fifty four dollars b allows the lower court to revisit modify reverse decisions at any time even without a change in fact and this court recognize not only does the power of a federal court to reverse its own decisions exist but it can modify or reverse decisions of a coordinate court that's what happened here it was a decision of that court to modify the decision of a coordinate court both times the lower court looked at this provision issue it treated this as a six thousand and thirty one transfer so both by operation of law the fact that this was i'm sorry ou both by operational law and by the fact that the lower court's excuse me the western district of louisiana modified this other opinion so both of those allow one thousand six hundred and thirty one dollars to apply would supply it must apply because it is a ballot an act of congress and because it reaches the point before the court the most analogous situation we have in supreme court jurisprudence is stuart organizations versus rico corp in one thousand nine hundred and eight in that eight to one opinion the supreme court held that alabama state substantive law could not affect the application of a fourteen for a transfer in that case it was a  contract law governed by alabama substantive law it was filed in federal court under diversity jurisdiction and alabama substantive law would have held a form selection clause within the contract as an enfor but the supreme court said even though that form selection clause would be unenforceable across the street in the alabama court the federal court because it has a congressional mandate through fourteen thousand and forty eight to look at this transfer a certain way can the federal courts should not consider this form selection clause that would have been held in forcible under alabama law and the majority roundly rejected this you know what strikes me about this argument  selection clause and outcome determinative yes from what you're telling me you you filed in the eastern district of texas because you perceive that to be the best possible  your client but had you been looking at the limitations and places of would have had appropriate jurisdiction and venue you would have known that you had to follow these other laws and this is tells the court what to do with that case once it has been fought once you know once the court has determined where and when it has been filed but it does not speak to how the court determines where and when it was fun this is similar to the walker vs armco analysis and what they did is they looked and they said does rule three tell the court to tell the statute of limitations no and because of that it doesn't tell the statute of limitations and the issue before the and thirty one does tell the court that it's directly on point that's why the that's why the idea that one thousand six hundred and thirty one only applies to federal time in issues can't hold never does that the st circuit in federal home bank loan of boston versus moody's corporation a two thousand and fourteen case the st circuit said the purpose after looking at legislative history extent extensively said the purpose of  side says that yes the federal excuse me the state rules provide the rules of decision in less actions of congress provide otherwise in this particular case the actions of congress do demand a different result again after a long time of looking at this case i am not as convinced there is an absolute conflict here because the two statutes really do speak to two different things but if there is a conflict there is no doubt this statute is on point and it is valid and because of that because the statute is on point and valid it has to be applied there is no eerie analysis eery analysis only applies to judge made law this is an act of congress not a judge made law your orders for a final point i'd like to turn to the personal jurisdiction aspect because this has been so heavily litigated i'd like to point out that no circuit court has ever held one thousand six hundred and thirty one to be restricted only to subject matter jurisdiction only in dicta have any courts ever said that any court that has reached the issue has have also th means and that the statute means what it says jurisdiction plainly can encompass both subject matter and personal jurisdiction if congress had meant to say only subject matter jurisdiction it would have done so i see that i am out of claims if the action was originally filed in an incompetent court or an improper venue see it undisputed that plaintive simply did not comply with the requirements and seventy it's understood your honor's that the eastern district of texas was an incompetent court and an improper venue as the eastern district of texas did not have personal limitations difference i'm not sure what well i think i know but that's neither here nor there yours it's under speedy owners that plaintiff's claims were time barred under the application of louisiana substan specifically and just for the record article three thousand four hundred and sixty two states important part if an action is in commenced in a incompetent court or an improper venue prescription is interrupted only as to a defendant served by process within the prescription period this is the substantive law of the state of louisiana plaintiff's case was time barred by operation of law three days after they filed in the eastern district of texas which is no dispute that is correct as already established plaintiff filed in an improper jurisdiction and did not serve defendants within the one year prescription period the core policy of erie is that  a different outcome because it is filed or removed to federal court rather than in state court and that is absolutely what is happening here right but you don't disagree that had the case been timely on that issue is completely improper as i said the core policy of eerie is that ok should not have a different outcome if filed in state versus federal court that is absolutely what's going to happen here if this but there are many cases they're using one thousand six hundred and thirty one in a diversity case regarding limitations periods when they're not related specifically when you get to the diversity realm i would have thought there would be another case or two out there where limitations problem citizen i have not found one of these from district i'm sorry in the th circuit your honor there are believe a case or two out it'll you know it'll be timely filed in the other court of the transfer request so i think louisiana is very very their description period and i don't know of another prescription period requiring service within the one year i stick i think that would be the proper ruling of this court i think the adams decision from the western district holds that way i think our lower court held up well didn't hold that way case as set forth in our brief your honor federal statute korean state law and only limited circumstances expressed preemption feel preemption and conflict preemption i think it's obviously the purpose of  preemption applies only one it is impossible for a private party to comply with votes to both state and federal law and where under the circumstances of a particular case the challenge state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and next execution of the full purposes and objects of the congress in making this determination the course of the courts must be guided by a presumption against preemption and the historic policy that powers the powers of the states are not to be superseded by the federal acts issue whether a federal court sitting in diversity should apply its state or federal law in adjudicating a motion to transfer a case pursuant to a venue provision in a contract contractual form selection clause the court found and that's a twenty two of a report party's form selection clause the school stuart case did not involve the abrogation of a state statute of limitations or prescription rule by application of a federal statute as in this case as players would have us do stuart involve the application of a form judge morgan here in town with regard to this court and how it is looked at this issue the i would point the court towards its own decision in philips versus illinois gulf in texas but after a year instead of before a year and what the court said was quote deep curative effects of one thousand six hundred and thirty one apply only to those circumstances where the action would have been filed in the transfer record at the time of the filing in the transfer or court in other words if i had followed this case after that one year period obviously one thousand six hundred and thirty one dollars would rescue anything i don't see how that could promote promote forum shopping because only if only if the plaintiff files within the original period could it matter of your honor this idea that you are sort of if you prevail you're getting a benefit comparable