[00:00:00] Speaker 02:
Okay, we're ready to go to 24-80-28, CEDEX versus Lincoln strategy.

[00:00:07] Speaker 02:
And there's also 24-80-36.

[00:00:09] Speaker 02:
May it please the court?

[00:00:14] Speaker 04:
My name is Landon Hickory.

[00:00:15] Speaker 04:
I'm here representing CEDEX along with my co-counsel, Eric O'Blesser.

[00:00:21] Speaker 04:
And what I would like to do, and I hope I can do so, is reserve about three minutes for rebuttal just in case I need it.

[00:00:28] Speaker 04:
I'll try to watch the clock for that.

[00:00:31] Speaker 04:
One of the driving considerations underlying doctrines such as the finality of judgments, collateral order doctrine, and pragmatic finality are that we don't want appellate courts having to deal with piecemeal appeals.

[00:00:46] Speaker 04:
We have come to the conclusion as a policy matter, I think, that it's not cost effective, it's not effective for judicial administration, and it's not the way that we want appeals

[00:00:58] Speaker 04:
handled in a piecemeal manner.

[00:01:02] Speaker 04:
The problem with this case is that the district court's order is already assured that this case will be held in a piecemeal manner in several different courts right now.

[00:01:15] Speaker 04:
And the, of course- Why would that be?

[00:01:19] Speaker 06:
Didn't he just transfer the three defendants to Arizona?

[00:01:25] Speaker 04:
He did.

[00:01:26] Speaker 06:
And then he dismissed Kanye 2020.

[00:01:28] Speaker 04:
Well, he dismissed Condi in 2020 without prejudice.

[00:01:31] Speaker 04:
And then he transferred it into a transfer of the Spruill defendants over to Arizona.

[00:01:37] Speaker 04:
The transfer order, I believe, is just blatantly invalid because there's zero evidence that there was any consideration of whether the case could have originally have been brought in Arizona.

[00:01:49] Speaker 04:
And in fact, it seems particularly clear that it could not have been.

[00:01:52] Speaker 04:
There's no jurisdiction.

[00:01:53] Speaker 06:
Well, are we able to review that transfer order?

[00:01:57] Speaker 04:
Isn't that the problem?

[00:01:59] Speaker 06:
We don't review transfer orders.

[00:02:02] Speaker 04:
Right.

[00:02:02] Speaker 04:
And typically, of course, this court does not review transfer orders.

[00:02:06] Speaker 04:
And the reason is that the way that this generally comes about is the case is transferred, and then there can be a motion to retransfer it.

[00:02:16] Speaker 04:
And then, of course, it goes to the circuit court in the transferor court.

[00:02:20] Speaker 04:
The problem here is that the case was impermissibly split up.

[00:02:24] Speaker 05:
Well, okay.

[00:02:26] Speaker 05:
Don't we have case law that says we don't interpret a case as being severed unless it specifically says that in the district court order?

[00:02:37] Speaker 04:
Absolutely.

[00:02:38] Speaker 05:
It doesn't say that here.

[00:02:39] Speaker 05:
It does not say... Nothing in the district court order that says I'm severing this case.

[00:02:45] Speaker 04:
There is no severance in this case and there's no appellate jurisdiction based on severance.

[00:02:51] Speaker 04:
the appellate jurisdiction in this case and let me get to your point.

[00:02:54] Speaker 06:
Should we send it back to the district court for clarification since the district court seemed at least to me it seemed a little confused about what it had done because first it says it's transferring the three defendants and it's not transferring Kanye West or Kanye 2020 and then you asked for somebody asked for re-hearing I guess it's Kanye 2020 on the motion to a motion to

[00:03:20] Speaker 06:
make the dismissal with prejudice, and the district court says, well, I don't have jurisdiction over that because I transferred everything, right?

[00:03:29] Speaker 04:
Is that inconsistent?

[00:03:30] Speaker 04:
Right.

[00:03:30] Speaker 04:
The district court said, I don't have subject matter jurisdiction because I transferred it five days ago.

[00:03:35] Speaker 06:
But he already held that he didn't.

[00:03:37] Speaker 06:
In the order, he said, I'm not transferring Kanye 2020.

[00:03:41] Speaker 04:
Nope.

[00:03:42] Speaker 04:
I don't recall the order being that particularly clear.

[00:03:46] Speaker 04:
I think one of the issues that we're having is it's very clear that the school defendants were transferred.

[00:03:52] Speaker 04:
And it's very clear, I think, that there's no jurisdiction over Kanye 2020 in Arizona.

[00:03:57] Speaker 04:
So I think that that makes it very clear that the transfer order was invalid in the first instance.

[00:04:02] Speaker 06:
So you're assuming that the district court intended to transfer Kanye 2020?

[00:04:06] Speaker 04:
I honestly don't know.

[00:04:10] Speaker 04:
I don't, it doesn't seem that the court did intend to transfer Kanye 2020, but when we went back and when Ms.

[00:04:19] Speaker 04:
Iberlin went back for Kanye 2020 and tried to get a motion for reconsideration, to which I would have responded if there had been subject matter jurisdiction, well, the court said, I lost subject matter jurisdiction five days after my order because I transferred everything to Arizona.

[00:04:36] Speaker 04:
So now, back to the original point that I was making, this is the piecemeal status of the case right now.

[00:04:45] Speaker 04:
Cognitive 2020 and CDEX are presumably somewhere in Wyoming.

[00:04:51] Speaker 04:
But the case has been dismissed without prejudice.

[00:04:55] Speaker 04:
That means, of course, that I can refile it.

[00:04:58] Speaker 04:
So as counsel for CDEX, if this court doesn't review this case at this point, what do I do?

[00:05:05] Speaker 04:
I have to go refile the case.

[00:05:07] Speaker 04:
I have to refile it in Wyoming, because that's where I have jurisdiction over Kanye 2020, because this case seeks the same money.

[00:05:15] Speaker 04:
It's just compensation for services.

[00:05:18] Speaker 04:
And we pled it alternatively, as we're allowed to under the rules.

[00:05:21] Speaker 04:
We said, OK, we're going to collect our money from whomever owes it.

[00:05:25] Speaker 04:
Now, in order to assert that claim again in Wyoming, I have to include the Spruill defendants in a new petition, presumably in Wyoming,

[00:05:35] Speaker 04:
Why?

[00:05:35] Speaker 02:
Explain that.

[00:05:37] Speaker 02:
Why would you have to include the Spruill defendants?

[00:05:40] Speaker 02:
Because you don't know whether who's going to end up in the end being liable, whether it's Spruill or Kanye 2020?

[00:05:47] Speaker 04:
Because someone owes my client money, and my client was paid $0.

[00:05:53] Speaker 04:
We know that Fortified was paid almost $5 million.

[00:05:57] Speaker 04:
We alleged the case alternatively because we didn't know if part of that $5 million

[00:06:04] Speaker 04:
was for services that CX is rendered.

[00:06:07] Speaker 04:
And so we pledded alternatively exactly as we could.

[00:06:10] Speaker 06:
Can you go back?

[00:06:11] Speaker 06:
I did find what I was referring to in the resolution of the motion to dismiss.

[00:06:17] Speaker 06:
At the end is where the district court has a separate section about transferring the claims.

[00:06:24] Speaker 06:
He goes all through the various factors, talks about the Lincoln defendants, and then he includes this paragraph at the very end.

[00:06:29] Speaker 06:
All told, we find transferring claims

[00:06:32] Speaker 06:
against the Lincoln defendants of the district of Arizona under 1631 would be in the interest of justice.

[00:06:36] Speaker 06:
However, the claims against Kanye 2020 shall not be transferred due to CEDEX's failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

[00:06:46] Speaker 06:
So I'm not sure why you would proceed as though the district court did transfer all the claims.

[00:06:52] Speaker 06:
And I understand that may have been, you're saying that it couldn't separate them, but

[00:06:57] Speaker 06:
It seems clear to me the district court thought he was only transferring the claims against the three defendants, and then later it seems a bit confused and says, I lost jurisdiction because I transferred all the claims.

[00:07:11] Speaker 04:
I agree with you completely.

[00:07:12] Speaker 06:
I'm just wondering how we clarify that, because that seems to be the root of a lot of this

[00:07:18] Speaker 04:
I think that the easy way to clarify it is you look at the transfer order you look at 1621 Which says you can only transfer it to somewhere where it could have been fought But we don't have jurisdiction over to review the transfer order right you've got to bring that

[00:07:33] Speaker 05:
over in the Ninth Circuit or in the Arizona Court.

[00:07:36] Speaker 04:
The Ninth Circuit is explicitly held that it has no jurisdiction to review the transfer order.

[00:07:41] Speaker 06:
Unless there's first a request to re-transfer to the Tenth Circuit.

[00:07:45] Speaker 06:
There has to be a request to re-transfer to the originating circuit, and then when that's denied, then the Ninth Circuit can review it, and that's typical.

[00:07:54] Speaker 04:
Well, if you could do that, but... Well, but you can do that.

[00:07:58] Speaker 05:
It happens.

[00:08:00] Speaker 04:
Here's what the court said in Chrysler credit.

[00:08:03] Speaker 04:
Of course, the mere transfer of the record cannot ratify an otherwise invalid transfer.

[00:08:09] Speaker 04:
Hence, when a district court transfers a case without proper authority or the transferee court lacks jurisdiction over the case, a valid transfer has not been effectuated and appellate jurisdiction remains in the transfer or court.

[00:08:22] Speaker 05:
But you've got to make a motion.

[00:08:24] Speaker 05:
You've already been transferred over there.

[00:08:27] Speaker 05:
You've got to make a motion to come back.

[00:08:30] Speaker 05:
And then if it's denied, if it's granted,

[00:08:32] Speaker 05:
You come back.

[00:08:33] Speaker 05:
If it's denied, you have to appeal and make the arguments that you're making.

[00:08:39] Speaker 05:
The district court dismissed the claims against Kanye 2020 under 12b6 because none of them stated a claim.

[00:08:51] Speaker 05:
And the rationale seems pretty clear that they did not state a claim.

[00:08:57] Speaker 05:
I mean, they were dismissed without prejudice

[00:09:01] Speaker 05:
So you're free to replede them if you can come up with allegations that would actually support those claims, aren't you?

[00:09:10] Speaker 05:
And you can sue wherever you can find him.

[00:09:13] Speaker 04:
That's exactly why we asked to amend the claim in response to that motion.

[00:09:18] Speaker 04:
We said, if there's any question about that, don't dismiss it.

[00:09:21] Speaker 04:
Let us amend the claim.

[00:09:23] Speaker 05:
Well, he dismissed it without prejudice.

[00:09:26] Speaker 04:
He did dismiss it without prejudice, but the law is also very clear in this circuit that if fact issues are raised by motions to dismiss, who owes, was the $5 million or less than $5 million that was paid to Fortify, did that include something for CEDEX to serve?

[00:09:41] Speaker 05:
Well, the motion to dismiss isn't about fact issues.

[00:09:43] Speaker 05:
The motion to dismiss is whether you have pled facts which, if you assume they're true, could support the elements of your claim.

[00:09:54] Speaker 05:
And your complaint didn't do that for any of the claims.

[00:09:59] Speaker 04:
These people all worked on the same campaign.

[00:10:03] Speaker 04:
Well, it doesn't matter.

[00:10:04] Speaker 05:
You have to have either, you know, you have to show, if it's a breach of contract claim, you've got to show a contract, right?

[00:10:12] Speaker 05:
If it's a quantum error claim, you've got to show the elements of that.

[00:10:16] Speaker 05:
You've got to go through each claim element by element and compare your complaint and decide whether that complaint

[00:10:24] Speaker 05:
even taking allegations as true, supported the claim.

[00:10:28] Speaker 05:
And the district court went through each of them and said the answer was no and dismissed without prejudice so that you could, if you can, fix your allegations.

[00:10:39] Speaker 04:
The district court, and again, it's unclear where I can do that.

[00:10:43] Speaker 04:
I think I have to file a brand new suit because the district court said it has no jurisdiction.

[00:10:47] Speaker 04:
Now, if this court sends it back and asks for clarification, of course, I'll try to admit it in this court.

[00:10:53] Speaker 04:
So that we're not, and then you were asking how to get to this number of courts.

[00:10:57] Speaker 04:
We've got this court, we've got Arizona, we've got the Ninth Circuit, we've got this court.

[00:11:00] Speaker 06:
And if I have to re-file- Well, you don't have anything other than the District of Arizona.

[00:11:04] Speaker 06:
Right now, you don't have anything other than the District of Arizona.

[00:11:07] Speaker 04:
I do.

[00:11:08] Speaker 04:
The Spruill defendants are in the District of Arizona.

[00:11:09] Speaker 06:
Right.

[00:11:10] Speaker 06:
That's what I'm saying.

[00:11:11] Speaker 04:
Yeah.

[00:11:12] Speaker 04:
So right now, we're in two different district courts with two different circuit courts.

[00:11:17] Speaker 04:
I believe that this court can, I mean, the plausibility

[00:11:21] Speaker 04:
Honestly, I didn't think it was very close.

[00:11:25] Speaker 04:
I mean, if you're in a commercial transaction and you're rendering services and you don't get paid for them, you've got to expect that you get paid for your services.

[00:11:32] Speaker 05:
Well, you can't expect to be paid by a third party who didn't know they owed you the money.

[00:11:37] Speaker 04:
The services that you're rendering are directly to the campaign.

[00:11:41] Speaker 05:
I mean, you know, there are elements for your cause of action and they were not adequately pledged.

[00:11:47] Speaker 05:
The court dismissed it because they weren't adequately pled.

[00:11:50] Speaker 05:
And so now the question is, since it was without prejudice, where can you refile?

[00:11:56] Speaker 02:
Well, may I modify that a little bit?

[00:11:58] Speaker 02:
Sure.

[00:11:59] Speaker 02:
So we're not going to be able to review the transfer to Arizona.

[00:12:05] Speaker 02:
I think that's pretty clear.

[00:12:09] Speaker 02:
On the claims against Kanye 2020,

[00:12:14] Speaker 02:
there's some confusion from the district court's order, which we probably ought to get clarified.

[00:12:20] Speaker 02:
For some reason, he refused to consider the motion to reconsider whether the dismissal should be with prejudice, refused to consider that saying, I've transferred the case.

[00:12:32] Speaker 02:
And he hadn't.

[00:12:33] Speaker 02:
Maybe he meant to.

[00:12:35] Speaker 02:
Maybe that's what he will do.

[00:12:36] Speaker 02:
I doubt it.

[00:12:37] Speaker 02:
So don't we need to go back to the district judge, say, clarify this,

[00:12:43] Speaker 02:
If you're not transferring the Kanye 2020 claim, then you need to, you can hear the request to make it a dismissal with prejudice.

[00:12:54] Speaker 02:
And then you'll go from there.

[00:12:57] Speaker 04:
And presumably my request to amend.

[00:12:59] Speaker 04:
as at the same time, because clearly we made that request before.

[00:13:04] Speaker 02:
And what we now know... He wouldn't dismiss with prejudice.

[00:13:07] Speaker 02:
He meant to allow you, if he still wants you to have a chance to amend.

[00:13:11] Speaker 02:
So he'll just say, that was an oversight.

[00:13:15] Speaker 02:
I want you to have a chance to amend.

[00:13:18] Speaker 02:
Let's proceed from there.

[00:13:19] Speaker 02:
Or he may say, I don't think you have it.

[00:13:21] Speaker 02:
There's a prayer that you're going to be able to state a claim against Kanye 2020.

[00:13:25] Speaker 02:
So I want to dismiss with prejudice.

[00:13:28] Speaker 02:
Isn't that the way to handle this?

[00:13:30] Speaker 04:
Well, I think so, but this quotation that I read you from Price for Credit indicates that if the transfer is void, if it's an invalid transfer, then the jurisdiction remains with this court.

[00:13:45] Speaker 04:
And it clearly is invalid because there's no jurisdiction.

[00:13:49] Speaker 04:
As the case was originally filed, it could not have been brought in Arizona against Kanye 2020.

[00:13:54] Speaker 04:
There's no jurisdiction.

[00:13:56] Speaker 02:
If the judge decides that

[00:14:00] Speaker 02:
I meant what I said and I transferred it.

[00:14:03] Speaker 02:
Well, I meant what I said at one point, but not what I said earlier.

[00:14:06] Speaker 02:
And I did mean to transfer Kanye 2020.

[00:14:12] Speaker 02:
I'm not sure you can appeal that.

[00:14:18] Speaker 02:
But to this court, it may be mandamus.

[00:14:21] Speaker 02:
But in any event, I suspect what will happen is he'll

[00:14:25] Speaker 02:
not transfer Kanye 2020, and then decide whether to allow you to amend or not.

[00:14:31] Speaker 02:
And presumably... Is there anything wrong with that?

[00:14:34] Speaker 04:
Excuse me.

[00:14:34] Speaker 04:
Presumably decide whether to sever or not as well, because right now there's no severance.

[00:14:39] Speaker 04:
Right.

[00:14:40] Speaker 04:
And so that summary decision to send it back to ask for clarification may be the way that it has to go.

[00:14:47] Speaker 06:
Is there a need to sever since the district court clearly ruled on the motion to dismiss and dismissed

[00:14:55] Speaker 06:
Kanye 2020 before it ever transferred, at least on the docket, it was four days before it transferred the other three defendants, so there's nothing left at that point, I think is what the district court was thinking.

[00:15:07] Speaker 06:
There's nothing to sever.

[00:15:09] Speaker 04:
It may be, but that's not what the Schrader case says, and that's not what 1631 says.

[00:15:12] Speaker 06:
Well, the Schrader case does not have these facts at all.

[00:15:15] Speaker 06:
The Schrader case has a lot of different defendants who are in different, have different, you know, in different states.

[00:15:22] Speaker 06:
We have

[00:15:23] Speaker 06:
three defendants who can be in Arizona, another defendant who can't be but has been dismissed from the case.

[00:15:30] Speaker 06:
And there are other cases that have a similar set of facts that you don't... Excuse me for interrupting you.

[00:15:36] Speaker 04:
That is certainly not how I'll read 1631.

[00:15:38] Speaker 04:
1631 says at the time it was filed, at the time it was filed, Kanye 2020 was a defendant, so transfer to Arizona.

[00:15:47] Speaker 04:
was not possible under 1631.

[00:15:49] Speaker 05:
Well, because they can't all be sued in the same state, that would mean that no court could hear it.

[00:15:56] Speaker 04:
The only court that can hear it is Wyoming.

[00:15:59] Speaker 05:
Well, except for that there was no jurisdiction over these parties that got transferred to Arizona.

[00:16:05] Speaker 05:
That's why they were transferred.

[00:16:07] Speaker 05:
So you have a choice between suing one in Wyoming and the rest in Arizona or just saying there's no court that can hear it.

[00:16:16] Speaker 04:
Or I guess the motion to retransfer, of course, at that point in time, the three people that are in the motion to retransfer are Arizona plaintiffs with general jurisdiction.

[00:16:28] Speaker 04:
And that's a very different situation than what should have been done at the beginning, which is to ask the question, is there a jurisdiction over this case in Arizona?

[00:16:42] Speaker 02:
Thank you, counsel.

[00:16:46] Speaker 02:
I'm not sure you have a lot you need to say, but you've got some time.

[00:16:52] Speaker 03:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:16:54] Speaker 03:
My name is John Nepper, and I represent the Lincoln Defendants.

[00:16:58] Speaker 03:
And I'm going to split time with the attorney for Kanye 2020.

[00:17:04] Speaker 03:
talk about the writ of mandamus to review the transfer to Arizona.

[00:17:08] Speaker 03:
There's no writ of mandamus.

[00:17:09] Speaker 03:
There's no petition for a writ of mandamus.

[00:17:11] Speaker 03:
Well, this court has ruled that the court can, su espante, change a 1291 appeal into a writ of mandamus and grant relief.

[00:17:21] Speaker 03:
You know, we're still subject to the requirements of a writ of mandamus and that the need for relief has to be clear.

[00:17:28] Speaker 03:
And I think there's the most

[00:17:32] Speaker 03:
The clearest basis for a writ of mandamus is there was no notice or an opportunity to be heard of the transfer.

[00:17:39] Speaker 03:
The district court transferred it.

[00:17:40] Speaker 03:
There was never any briefing.

[00:17:42] Speaker 03:
There was never any request.

[00:17:44] Speaker 03:
The first time any of the parties learned of the transfer was in the district court's order.

[00:17:50] Speaker 03:
And this court, in a case from the 80s, Henry Dalton, has said that transfer without notice and an opportunity to be heard

[00:17:58] Speaker 03:
It doesn't mean you have to hold a hearing, but you have to have notice and opportunity.

[00:18:02] Speaker 05:
For a writ of mandamus, don't you have to have no other adequate means of appeal?

[00:18:07] Speaker 05:
Well, I mean, in this case... You could bring this in the Arizona court, right?

[00:18:12] Speaker 05:
You have an opportunity to raise this, to make a motion, transfer it back, and if it's denied, to appeal to the Ninth Circuit.

[00:18:20] Speaker 03:
But, Your Honor, for the scroll defendants, there's no transfer back to...

[00:18:29] Speaker 03:
to Wyoming because there's no personal jurisdiction over them.

[00:18:32] Speaker 03:
So the point is that the plaintiffs brought the claim, the plaintiff brought their action, their civil action under 1631 in Wyoming and then the district court transferred it without giving anyone notice that it was going to be transferred and that

[00:18:51] Speaker 03:
That is, from Wright and Miller and others, that's black letter law.

[00:18:55] Speaker 03:
You have to give the parties at least an awareness that transfer is a possibility.

[00:18:59] Speaker 02:
And would we just be, if we decided that that was improper remanded, would we just be spinning our wheels?

[00:19:10] Speaker 02:
What did you want them to do, just dismiss and not transfer?

[00:19:14] Speaker 03:
Your Honor, in any one of these cases, there are a lot of

[00:19:21] Speaker 03:
this underwater considerations that go on that, you know, I can't speak for the plaintiffs about the kinds of things, but two things I would know are I cannot imagine how difficult it will be for the plaintiffs to serve Kanye West anywhere other than in Wyoming where there's general jurisdiction over the campaign.

[00:19:46] Speaker 03:
figure that if I were him, I would want to serve it in Wyoming, where I could just go to a registered agent.

[00:19:53] Speaker 03:
And so that's the first question.

[00:19:56] Speaker 03:
The other, and I would just note, I don't know that it applies here, but Arizona law provides for attorney's fees in a contract dispute.

[00:20:06] Speaker 03:
It does not adopt the American rule.

[00:20:08] Speaker 03:
It adopts the English rule for contract disputes.

[00:20:12] Speaker 03:
So those are the kinds of things

[00:20:16] Speaker 05:
that a plaintiff, when they bring a civil action... But you're arguing for the defendants, right?

[00:20:22] Speaker 03:
Well, from my defendant's perspective, the best result would be we go back to... We reverse the transfer order.

[00:20:28] Speaker 03:
Everyone has an opportunity.

[00:20:30] Speaker 03:
If the court wants to sever it, we get to argue that it shouldn't be severed, that it would be an abuse of discretion.

[00:20:35] Speaker 03:
We argue that there's no jurisdiction.

[00:20:37] Speaker 03:
And we are out for now.

[00:20:40] Speaker 02:
Yeah, but it's not a big difference practically, is it?

[00:20:44] Speaker 02:
Because if there's no jurisdiction over you, the dismissal has to be without prejudice.

[00:20:48] Speaker 02:
So the plaintiff could bring the claim in Arizona.

[00:20:51] Speaker 03:
But if the claim is litigated in Wyoming and either settled or there's a judgment in Wyoming, then my client may never have another interaction with this case.

[00:21:02] Speaker 02:
But if you're arguing there's no jurisdiction over you, am I wrong?

[00:21:06] Speaker 02:
Well, that's right.

[00:21:10] Speaker 02:
There's no way to resolve the case against you if there's no jurisdiction over you.

[00:21:14] Speaker 03:
Well, as counsel for the plaintiffs argued, they're seeking one piece of money.

[00:21:21] Speaker 03:
They're saying, we provided these services.

[00:21:23] Speaker 03:
We deserve to be paid for these services.

[00:21:25] Speaker 05:
So you want to keep it in Wyoming so you can keep the big pocket.

[00:21:28] Speaker 05:
in the case.

[00:21:29] Speaker 05:
Is that what we're talking about?

[00:21:31] Speaker 03:
I think that would be a spectacularly good result for my client.

[00:21:35] Speaker 05:
Yeah, well, I mean, that's not the district court's issue.

[00:21:38] Speaker 05:
The district court didn't have jurisdiction over the Lincoln defendants.

[00:21:41] Speaker 05:
And what the rule tells the district court is rather than dismissing, you can transfer.

[00:21:46] Speaker 05:
And that's what the district court did.

[00:21:49] Speaker 03:
But the district court can't transfer without giving us an opportunity to argue.

[00:21:53] Speaker 06:
The district court is required to consider Susponte.

[00:21:56] Speaker 03:
I can only say that this court has ruled that making an order of transfer without giving the parties notice and an opportunity to be heard is a violation of due process.

[00:22:13] Speaker 03:
That was in Redalton.

[00:22:14] Speaker 05:
Well, due process isn't a right just standing out there.

[00:22:18] Speaker 05:
You've got to have something you're protecting.

[00:22:20] Speaker 05:
The court doesn't have any jurisdiction over you.

[00:22:25] Speaker 05:
whether they give you an opportunity to be heard or not, the court can't entertain the claim against you.

[00:22:33] Speaker 05:
And so it is actually encouraged to transfer rather than dismiss.

[00:22:41] Speaker 05:
And I understand you want to keep Kanye 2020 right there next to you in the defendant's part of this trial.

[00:22:53] Speaker 05:
I don't know that that's a legitimate reason that you can't transfer a case where you don't have jurisdiction over the defendant.

[00:23:00] Speaker 03:
Again, I mean, this court's black letter law is that, I mean, this court's ruling, since it's in redoubts in the brief, is that we have to be told about it.

[00:23:10] Speaker 02:
And so that is a clear violation.

[00:23:12] Speaker 02:
I'm just curious what we're going to accomplish.

[00:23:15] Speaker 02:
But we have to remand anyway.

[00:23:17] Speaker 02:
The judge can decide these things.

[00:23:20] Speaker 02:
But you're not going to be any better off.

[00:23:22] Speaker 03:
Well, that's where the text of 1631 matters.

[00:23:27] Speaker 03:
And that's where the Schrader opinion comes in, because this court has said in Schrader, and the district courts have been following Schrader.

[00:23:36] Speaker 03:
And what they've said is that you can't transfer under 1631 if there's not a venue where it would send the whole case, the civil action.

[00:23:46] Speaker 03:
And so our argument, if we went back down to the district court, would be that

[00:23:49] Speaker 03:
You can't transfer under 1631.

[00:23:52] Speaker 02:
So the district court doesn't transfer.

[00:23:54] Speaker 02:
So then the plaintiffs sue you in Arizona.

[00:23:57] Speaker 03:
If at the time they bring suit in Arizona, they bring suit in Arizona.

[00:24:00] Speaker 02:
And then there's a judgment against you, and then you want to go against Kanye 2020.

[00:24:03] Speaker 03:
Well, or they continue in Wyoming against Kanye 2020, and then at some point, if they decide that's what they want, they come after my defendants in Arizona.

[00:24:14] Speaker 02:
You want something that probably can't be done here and just have a nice forum where everything can be resolved.

[00:24:20] Speaker 02:
And that would be very nice for everybody.

[00:24:24] Speaker 03:
I think from my client's perspective and the rules is that if there is no forum where everything can be resolved, then it should be the plaintiff's choice of forum.

[00:24:39] Speaker 03:
The plaintiff chose Wyoming.

[00:24:43] Speaker 03:
That's their decision.

[00:24:44] Speaker 02:
If they had chosen... The plaintiff doesn't have the right to choose a form for a claim against a defendant over whom there's no personal jurisdiction.

[00:24:56] Speaker 02:
We're not getting anywhere.

[00:24:59] Speaker 02:
I'm sorry.

[00:24:59] Speaker 02:
It's not your fault.

[00:25:01] Speaker 02:
It's probably not your fault.

[00:25:03] Speaker 03:
Do you have anything more to say?

[00:25:05] Speaker 03:
Just that we think that these are issues that should have been resolved at the

[00:25:15] Speaker 01:
Council Your honors, my name is Amy Iverlin and I represent Kanye 2020.

[00:25:35] Speaker 01:
I don't candidly have a lot to say I

[00:25:37] Speaker 01:
Being up here.

[00:25:40] Speaker 01:
I'm not going to waste a lot of your time.

[00:25:42] Speaker 01:
Ultimately, Your Honors, I think you hit the nail on the head when you were discussing the district court's order with respect to the transfer issue and the confusion related to that.

[00:25:53] Speaker 01:
We went back to the district court to seek some clarification on that matter to see if we could have this case dismissed for once and for all, since it was previously filed in Texas against County 2020, and that was dismissed.

[00:26:06] Speaker 01:
on a 12-by-6 motion there, we were hopeful that the district court would take that issue up at that particular time when we saw rule 50-90 relief.

[00:26:16] Speaker 01:
And it seemed that the court was confused when it stated that it had transferred the matter and no longer had jurisdiction over Kanyu 2020.

[00:26:25] Speaker 01:
So I agree with this panel in that I'm hopeful the district court will find that there is no jurisdiction in which to transfer the Kanyu claims

[00:26:35] Speaker 01:
against at least CDEX's claims against Kanye 2020 if this court were to remand and ask the district court for clarification on its intent with respect to that question.

[00:26:47] Speaker 01:
However, Your Honors, I believe that this court could simply remand

[00:26:54] Speaker 01:
and say that it can be dismissed with prejudice.

[00:26:56] Speaker 01:
And I know you've certainly read that in our briefing.

[00:26:59] Speaker 06:
So you would suggest that we would say that the district court erred when it found it didn't have jurisdiction to consider your request to dismiss with prejudice.

[00:27:12] Speaker 06:
That was an error and that we don't need to send it back for the district court to determine that because we can decide it ourselves.

[00:27:20] Speaker 01:
Simply put, Your Honor, I think that this Court can make the determination that the District Court improperly ruled that it didn't have jurisdiction when we requested the Rule 59E release.

[00:27:32] Speaker 01:
And likewise, that the Court could and should have granted our request for dismissal with prejudice.

[00:27:40] Speaker 02:
So that's totally in the discretion of the District Court when we dismiss with prejudice?

[00:27:45] Speaker 01:
It is to the extent, Your Honor, and I believe that... Let me get to that section.

[00:27:51] Speaker 01:
I believe two of you were on, in particular, the CARE case, where that was specifically stated in our brief.

[00:27:59] Speaker 01:
While we agree that the district court obviously, at the outset, granted our dismissal 12b6 motion and rule 8 motion appropriately, it abused its discretion when it failed to grant our request with prejudice.

[00:28:16] Speaker 01:
And the reason being is because in CDEX,

[00:28:24] Speaker 01:
The dismissal for the district court to grant with prejudice was legally supported, number one.

[00:28:29] Speaker 01:
And ultimately, a district court has discretion to dismiss a complaint without prejudice when the district court concludes that the circumstances so warrant.

[00:28:42] Speaker 01:
Here, there's no circumstances that would warrant it to be anything but with prejudice.

[00:28:46] Speaker 05:
Well, you're arguing any amendment would be futile.

[00:28:49] Speaker 01:
Yes, exactly.

[00:28:50] Speaker 01:
Is that what you're arguing?

[00:28:50] Speaker 01:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:28:52] Speaker 05:
Which would normally be argued to the district.

[00:28:54] Speaker 05:
I mean, we'll review it if the district court says it would be futile and they dismiss with prejudice.

[00:29:01] Speaker 05:
We'll review and if we disagree and say it could have been amended, we might reverse.

[00:29:05] Speaker 05:
But it's the district court who makes the first assessment of whether, and you may be right, it may be that they can't amend to fix the glaring errors in the complaint, but it's the district court's

[00:29:22] Speaker 05:
discretion whether they want to give them a chance.

[00:29:25] Speaker 01:
I don't disagree with Your Honor.

[00:29:26] Speaker 01:
Ultimately, I suppose that we will probably see you in the event that I am transferred somewhere else.

[00:29:34] Speaker 01:
Otherwise, I appreciate your time.

[00:29:35] Speaker 02:
If you're lucky, you'll have a different panel.

[00:29:37] Speaker 06:
I hope not.

[00:29:38] Speaker 06:
Thank you very much.

[00:29:39] Speaker 06:
Did you ask the District Court when it issued this decision saying it had transferred everything and it didn't have jurisdiction, did anybody say

[00:29:47] Speaker 01:
Well, that's in conflict with your order transferring only these defendants or so pointed out to the district court that that was we didn't even attempt to try to readdress that issue with the court because ultimately they issued a very timely order the following day after.

[00:30:04] Speaker 01:
We submitted our proposed request and they said that they didn't have jurisdiction so we just presumed that they weren't going to take up any more of our time in that regard.

[00:30:13] Speaker 01:
So ultimately I thought that we'd just end up before this court anyway and here we are.

[00:30:19] Speaker 01:
So otherwise we didn't seek any clarification with respect to that question.

[00:30:25] Speaker 01:
But otherwise overall I think Judge Johnson's order is absolutely perfect and appropriate.

[00:30:31] Speaker 01:
with respect to the issues dismissing Kanye 2020.

[00:30:34] Speaker 01:
And hopefully we can argue that matter before the court at some later time.

[00:30:39] Speaker 01:
Thank you, Your Honors.

[00:30:40] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:30:41] Speaker 02:
Thank you, Council.

[00:30:43] Speaker 02:
Thank you, Council.

[00:30:43] Speaker 02:
Case is submitted.

[00:30:44] Speaker 02:
Council are excused.