[00:00:01] Speaker 04:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:00:03] Speaker 04:
Sterling Kidd on behalf of Nicholas Services. I would like to reserve three minutes for rebuttal.

[00:00:11] Speaker 04:
Nicholas intends to discuss three legal issues with the panel today.

[00:00:16] Speaker 04:
The first is that this panel should stay a decision in this matter until it is determined whether the Fifth Circuit or the Mississippi District Court that sent the case here will ask for the case to be sent back.

[00:00:32] Speaker 03:
What's the status of the case in the Fifth Circuit?

[00:00:39] Speaker 04:
Your Honor, that was argued orally by myself and Mr. Frummel, who's there with you today on February the 3rd, 2026.

[00:00:47] Speaker 04:
And to that, the court's question is an excellent one because it goes directly to my point, which is, or my argument on that point, which is Glassdoor's really only opposition to the stay as it says, well, it's an indefinite stay. It lasts forever. The publicly available data, including from the Bar Association of the Fifth Circuit, is that that court typically resolves cases within a couple months of oral argument. They also ask about this case. I'm sorry to get the question, Your Honor.

[00:01:15] Speaker 03:
Go ahead. Well, what I'm wondering, is it clear under Fifth Circuit law that they view themselves as having jurisdiction over the transfer question, or does that travel with the case to the transferee court?

[00:01:35] Speaker 04:
The Fifth Circuit will have to resolve that question, Your Honor.

[00:01:39] Speaker 03:
My understanding is it's law on the Ninth Circuit and it's the other way, that it travels to the transferee court is normally our view. And so if we ship a case out to the Sixth Circuit, the Sixth Circuit reviews whether our transfer was correct and not the Ninth Circuit, the district court here. But my question was whether you know what rule the Fifth Circuit has, because maybe they won't reach the question at all.

[00:02:05] Speaker 04:
That's certainly a possibility, Your Honor, that they won't reach the question. That was really the focus of the oral argument.

[00:02:10] Speaker 03:
No one has raised the transfer issue to us.

[00:02:14] Speaker 04:
That's right. I am not asking you to resolve the transfer issue.

[00:02:17] Speaker 03:
If we're the correct court in which the transfer question had to be raised, it's been forfeited.

[00:02:23] Speaker 04:
That would be correct.

[00:02:26] Speaker 01:
What do we make of the Platkin case where I take the Fifth Circuit said that the court could request the return of the transferred case? Is that a suggestion that either the Court of Appeals or the district court could not order the return of the transferred case, particularly once it's already gone up on appeal?

[00:02:52] Speaker 04:
That's absolutely correct as well, Your Honor. It will be discretionary if the Fifth Circuit agrees with me that it can direct the district court to make that request. Then once the district court makes that request, it would be discretionary as to whether the courts here accept that. Now, so the way we view it, the Fifth Circuit can direct the district court in Mississippi to make the request, whether you all honor that request is in our view discretionary.

[00:03:22] Speaker 04:
But I would submit, Your Honors, that that question... Questionary to us.

[00:03:26] Speaker 04:
That's right. That's right.

[00:03:27] Speaker 03:
All right.

[00:03:29] Speaker 04:
And whether you all accept that is not yet before us because the request hasn't been made. Obviously, we may be here again if that request is ever made. And for some reason, either the district court or this court says, I'm not going to do it.

[00:03:41] Speaker 03:
Okay. But suppose that, just hypothetically, just suppose... that we don't grant a stay and things have played out so that we're going to reach the merits of the case, then why don't you tell us your views on the merits?

[00:03:59] Speaker 04:
Mr. Absolutely, Your Honor, and appreciate that. So, our point, Nicholas's point on Section 230 is really simple, straightforward, and based on the plain text of the statute we're talking about, Section 230.

[00:04:15] Speaker 04:
And so in particular, Your Honor, Your Honors, 47 U.S.C. Section 230 F3 defines an information content provider as an entity that is responsible in whole or in part for the creation or development of content on its page. That in part provision of the statute has to mean something.

[00:04:42] Speaker 04:
And as I'll discuss in just a moment, This court and bank has held that, in fact, it does mean something in roommates. But briefly, I also want to focus on Section 230C.

[00:04:53] Speaker 03:
I mean, doesn't it mean to be relevant for purposes of escaping Section 230 immunity that it contributes in part to the speech with respect to the aspect that makes it unlawful or tortious?

[00:05:12] Speaker 04:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:05:14] Speaker 03:
And how did you establish that here? What is the contribution of Glassdoor to the thing that makes it unlawful?

[00:05:25] Speaker 04:
Your Honor, I can't do it any better than the district judge in Mississippi originally did when addressing these Section 230 issues that's in the record at ER. The entire opinion is in the record at ER 23 through ER 41.

[00:05:40] Speaker 04:
But what the district court said In that respect, I'm looking down because I'm going to quote. Negative review, quote, negative review from an employee carries more weight than a negative review from a third party or a contractor. And by forcing users to state they are or were employees and giving them no other options, glass doors... Nearly, you know, putting a form that...

[00:06:07] Speaker 03:
asks you to identify your relationship to the company being reviewed is a contribution to defamatory content?

[00:06:18] Speaker 04:
Well, that We would say yes, answering that question is silo, Your Honor. There's some other points I'll make about how Glassdoor contributes, but let's stay on my first point for now, and I'll answer your question.

[00:06:28] Speaker 00:
Counsel, factually, I want to get some clarification on that point. It was a drop-down box, correct, that either said employee or current employee or former employee, correct?

[00:06:40] Speaker 04:
Your Honor, frankly, I'm not exactly sure of the mechanics, whether it's a drop-down box or Text is typed in, but it is required. I mean, what is clear in the record is it is required. The user has to select one of the two options. It can't say other. The user cannot bypass that option if the user wishes to post.

[00:07:01] Speaker 00:
And if there was that option, though, for the user to say other, would we still be here today? No.

[00:07:08] Speaker 04:
Your Honor, it's a fair question. I'm not sure. I think probably so for the reason the other points that I'll make about the ways that Glassdoor contributes.

[00:07:18] Speaker 04:
And so I'll get to those in just a moment, which I think will complete the answer to your question, Your Honor. But I want to make sure I've answered the prior question as well. And that is, the fact of the matter is, is again, let's return to the text of the statute. It says, in whole or in part. And so the point that the district judge in Mississippi made was you are saying you are an employee or a former or current employee, and then you're saying all of these negative things.

[00:07:51] Speaker 04:
Those two working together create the defamatory content.

[00:07:55] Speaker 01:
But doesn't that – I mean for – the illegality here is defamation, and so it really could cut either way.

[00:08:05] Speaker 01:
requiring that someone be an employee or a former employee. I mean, I think that sometimes an employee posting will make it, I don't know in terms of which element of make the injury, which element of defamation it matters to, but it might make the injury stronger.

[00:08:25] Speaker 01:
But it also might make the truth value of it more credible. That doesn't seem to be the same as what we said in roommates where the checking the very box was the illegality.

[00:08:42] Speaker 04:
And so, Your Honor, I'm glad you asked that question because I don't think we have to satisfy roommates like a round peg in a round hole to escape Section 230 immunity. I think we have to satisfy the statute, which again, refers to creating content in whole or in part.

[00:09:02] Speaker 03:
And so again, we have- But you conceded the proposition that the contribution that Glassdoor makes has to go to the thing that makes it unlawful and defamatory. And the mere fact that a person identifies themselves as a current employee or a former employee contributes nothing to making it defamatory. It's, in fact, going to be a truthful statement of the relationship between the company. And then it's when they go and say, what are the pros of working there?

[00:09:35] Speaker 03:
What are the cons? That's where you're saying the defamation is. So I don't see how the contribution of current or former employee contributes to that which makes it illegal.

[00:09:47] Speaker 04:
So, Your Honor, one point of clarification is It actually, and this isn't a major point, but I just want the record to be clear in case it influences the court's thinking at all. These folks are not employees of Nicholas Services, so that statement is false. Nicholas Services has no employees, and that's reflected in the record as one of our factual allegations.

[00:10:08] Speaker 03:
But that's getting to a very technical point about how the corporation is structured, where the brand name is Nicholas, But in fact, it has a separate LLC and legally all the employees who are attached to the LLC, but the public facing entity is Nicholas Air. And you're saying that making, you know, failing to, you know, follow the formalism of the sub versus the publicly facing brand is something that contributes to its defamatory content?

[00:10:43] Speaker 04:
Well, not really, Your Honor. I just wanted to clarify, you mentioned it being a true statement, so I want to be clear that it's a false statement.

[00:10:49] Speaker 03:
Okay, but you don't think that any inaccuracy on that point contributes to its defamatory content?

[00:10:57] Speaker 04:
Well, I think it all contributes to the defamatory content in the sense, Your Honor, that again, these folks are coming forward saying, I know what I'm talking about. That's the part that Glassdoor created. These people know what they're talking about, and here's what they have to say.

[00:11:11] Speaker 01:
But doesn't – I mean, Nicholas itself has held itself out as a hiring, recruiting agent here. So it doesn't seem like that can matter much to whether something is defamatory.

[00:11:24] Speaker 04:
Well, what I'm going back to, Your Honor, thank you for allowing me to clarify, is my original point, which is saying these folks are employees or former employees of any – whether it be Nicholas or the Right Identity Corps, and then asking them, actively soliciting negative feedback from them is what makes it defamatory.

[00:11:45] Speaker 01:
Mr. Kidd, what else would you raise a request to amend? What other facts do you think you could plead if this weren't enough that would be enough?

[00:11:57] Speaker 04:
Yes, Your Honor. I think the clearest thing that we would allege, I would submit we've already alleged it, but I think we could do it in a clearer fashion. which is we also believe that Glassdoor's business model is to use its algorithm to actually promote the negative content to the exclusion of the positive content. Now, that would very clearly be barred by Section 230, or excuse me, would very clearly survive Section 230.

[00:12:29] Speaker 04:
And Anderson versus TikTok from this court at 116F45, 180 says so. We cited that case in our briefing to the question of amendment, Your Honor.

[00:12:40] Speaker 04:
As we pointed out, the district court did not address at all our request to amend, and this court has been clear that when a plaintiff makes that request, if a district court is going to deny it, it at least has to explain why.

[00:12:53] Speaker 01:
Could you just do that at the hearing?

[00:12:57] Speaker 04:
Yes, Your Honor. I believe that's correct.

[00:13:02] Speaker 04:
Your Honors, I... To wrap up then, we believe that Glassdoor creates content in a number of different ways. We didn't fully cover some of the other ways that it creates content. I know that I'm into my rebuttal time now, so maybe I'll just address it then unless the court prefers something else.

[00:13:21] Speaker 03:
Okay. All right. Thank you, counsel. Thank you. We will hear now from Mr. Is it Fremel or Fremel? Fremel. Fremel. All right.

[00:13:36] Speaker 02:
Good morning, justices. May it please the court. My name is Bill Frimmel, and I represent Glassdoor.

[00:13:44] Speaker 02:
This case is about whether Nicholas can hold Glassdoor liable for third-party reviews by characterizing the neutral review tools offered by Glassdoor.

[00:13:57] Speaker 00:
Counsel, I apologize for interrupting, but I know we're going to have a bunch of questions for you. My first question is, maybe you can give me a little bit better direction. That box, because that seems to be the big issue. Former employee...

[00:14:10] Speaker 00:
Did people type it in? Was it a drop-down box? And does that not make Glassdoor a creator?

[00:14:18] Speaker 02:
Two answers. One, the logistics to the legal. The logistic question is answered at Exhibit D to the first amended complaint of Nicholas. And I'm looking at it here. It has a bubble by current employee, a bubble by former employee, and then it has a dropdown for your employment status. So it is not anything you would type in. It is you click or drag down.

[00:14:49] Speaker 02:
That absolutely does not cause Glassdoor to be author of defamatory content. I'm going to jump between two cases to explain why. You pulled the microphone up a little closer. Certainly. Let's get a little closer.

[00:15:08] Speaker 02:
So in roommates, when you have a predetermined answer, The only way that 230 doesn't prevent liability there is if that answer is inherently illegal itself or inherently defamatory. And as we all know in roommates, that was asking discriminatory-based questions for housing needs.

[00:15:32] Speaker 02:
But roommates also said, let's be very careful. We're limiting our pullback of immunity because of its inherent nature of causing illegality. If you ask the same very questions in a dating profile, you have immunity because they're not inherently illegal or defamatory. So there is a very bright line in roommates, and they went out of their way to make the court to make that point.

[00:16:02] Speaker 02:
The real analogy here is the Carafano case. That's what we have here.

[00:16:09] Speaker 02:
In Carafano, that was a dating website. And there, there were drop-down menus that said, you know, what's your name, what's your sex, you know, where are you? And there, someone falsely represented that they were someone else. They put in false answers to predetermined drop-downs. That did not cause, it was matchmaker, to lose its immunity under 230. Okay.

[00:16:37] Speaker 02:
So what do we have here? Let's compare what we have here to Carafano. Carafano is designed to elicit questions for those that are seeking to have a relationship. That was the design. Someone abused it. But the false comments in Carafano were not the websites. They were the users. What do we have here? Glassdoor is designed for employees, current or former, to explain to the world, to facilitate, to help people understand if they would want to work somewhere.

[00:17:12] Speaker 02:
Maybe there's something great to work there for. Maybe there's something bad. But the point is for employees, current or past, to express their opinions of what it's like to work there. Thus the option, current or former.

[00:17:28] Speaker 02:
If someone actually hasn't been an employee of Glassdoor, they shouldn't be on the site reviewing the company. That falsity is not Glassdoor's cause. That's the author selecting a false answer. That's not Glassdoor making a false statement. That's Carafano. And that's the bright, bright line that roommates draws. It's not inherently defamatory to ask someone if they're a current or former employee. It's the false response from the author of the review of the user of the website that's causing the problem.

[00:18:04] Speaker 01:
What about the very listing of Nicholas, which has no employees on Glassdoor?

[00:18:12] Speaker 02:
Well, certainly that's not defamatory to say Nicholas has employees. And again, the website... False. Even the falsity. False is not defamatory. So creating the website does not...

[00:18:28] Speaker 01:
cause uh or lack of immunity under section 230. now the the panel touched on whether or not nicholas well it may not create those are two different things it may not create liability for defamation but is creating the website uh itself protected by uh 230.

[00:18:48] Speaker 02:
Yes, it's based on information provided by third parties. The website is collecting form submitted by a proposed – someone that says they have been an employee, and they have generated then a review site for that company.

[00:19:03] Speaker 01:
So governed by Carafano or your reading of Carafano?

[00:19:06] Speaker 02:
Yes, or roommates.

[00:19:09] Speaker 02:
And I think we can expound on that. It goes to the point of 230, which protects websites from having to verify every single person that posts. So now if someone comes and says, I was an employee of Nicholas Ayer – Does Glassdoor now have to somehow verify with that user or through independent purposes or independent mechanisms to verify whether or not they're a user? And that's what 230's purpose is, is to avoid that sort of verification for everybody that posts.

[00:19:41] Speaker 03:
What's your response to your opposing counsel's argument that he should have been granted leave to amend so that he can um allege additional facts to say that the business model uh is to use an algorithm that promotes the negative over the positive presumably maybe that gets more clicks so is what's your response to that

[00:20:13] Speaker 02:
My response is that the proposed amendment still goes to the collection and presentation of user-defined content and user-proposed content.

[00:20:25] Speaker 03:
Then you are contributing the content. If you just get the content and you just post it, that's one thing. But if you start organizing the content and you promote some over others and downgrade and lift... I mean, those are the kind of things that the Supreme Court has said can give a website operator First Amendment protection, precisely because you're contributing to pushing, downgrading items. You're making selective decisions. So wouldn't that be out of Section 230 if that's in fact, if he can allege that you were promoting content and downgrading content and not just posting neutrally what came in?

[00:21:06] Speaker 02:
So bear with me. I'm going to get there, but I think there's a few steps to get there. First is this was never pleaded, and it was brought for the first time in a reply brief to this panel. So I don't think it's properly before the court. Not even in the opening brief? Not in the opening brief, not in front of the district court. It was for the very end. I will suggest it wasn't even brought forth in the reply in this court. It says this is what for the first time in reply before this court, Nicholas says it.

[00:21:39] Speaker 02:
I'm reading this. It's page nine of their brief.

[00:21:42] Speaker 02:
Nicholas could help the reply of the opening the reply of the reply. Nicholas could allege that glass door helped to author the March twenty third review. Nicholas could attest that these statements and others like them are false.

[00:21:57] Speaker 02:
Nicholas could amend to more clearly allege that glass door engages in content creation.

[00:22:04] Speaker 02:
and that its entire business model is premised upon negative posts and actively promoting negative posts.

[00:22:12] Speaker 02:
Promoting negative posts is not defamation. Of course, we contest that that's what we do, but that's not defamation.

[00:22:21] Speaker 03:
But promoting posts might be your speech. And it might be you have a First Amendment defense. It might be you'd have a defense on the merits of defamation. But if you're promoting posts, wouldn't that be, in some sense, your speech?

[00:22:36] Speaker 02:
No, because what Nicholas is doing is they're relying on the Third Circuit's argument in Anderson v. TikTok and the NetChoice Supreme Court case. And in there we have algorithmic decisions that unilaterally on behalf of the website push to who they think want to see certain things. The Anderson is the tragic issue of the self-suffocation videos to a 10-year-old girl. That user, that girl, did not go out and seek those reviews or seek how to do it.

[00:23:13] Speaker 02:
She didn't search for, I don't know, self-affixiation. That's the big difference here.

[00:23:20] Speaker 02:
Glassdoor is not... compiling negative reviews and pushing them out, telling people, hey, I think you over here may be interested in these negative reviews because you have searched for companies in the aerospace industry. What's happening, what the most that Nicholas could allege is that Glassdoor takes the reviews or the ratings, the one to five stars, and compiles those and then promotes those generally speaking.

[00:23:54] Speaker 02:
They don't, like in Anderson and NetChoice, take algorithmic decision-making itself and go out and make an expression to everyone. Someone would have to search on Glassdoor to find the negative reviews for a company. And that's the beginning of Kimsey. That's the Kimsey case here, this circuit's case, where they say, of course, a star rating, and I think it was Yelp. That is not...

[00:24:21] Speaker 02:
an information content provider. The website is not acting as providing content. So we start with that from collecting reviews. And if people can go and search and find out how many reviews there are, even if those have been collected and they're highlighted on a page about that company, that's different than what's happening in the Third Circuit with Anderson. This court has not gone there, and I believe it would be contrary to roommates.

[00:24:47] Speaker 01:
Mr. Frimmel, Would it be cleaner for us to at least stay any decision here until we hear from the Fifth Circuit?

[00:24:57] Speaker 02:
I'm glad you asked that, and the short answer is no. I spent a wonderful time in front of the First Circuit. It's an incredibly complicated case, but only from the sense of should Nicholas have sought to pull the case back through writ of mandamus versus appeal?

[00:25:15] Speaker 03:
Do you know whether or not there is an answer in existing Fifth Circuit precedent to whether or not The Fifth Circuit believes that an appeal from the transferor court is valid, or do you have to go to the transferee's court of appeals?

[00:25:41] Speaker 02:
Let me tell you what the Fifth Circuit has said, and you all referenced the Platkin case. This is a quote from Platkin. The transfer ended our control over the case.

[00:25:53] Speaker 02:
It went on to say they can... Platkin is what?

[00:25:56] Speaker 03:
That's the Fifth Circuit case. That's Fifth Circuit.

[00:25:58] Speaker 02:
Fifth Circuit.

[00:25:59] Speaker 03:
So they say once it goes out to another district court in another circuit, the authority is gone. The authority for the case is out there.

[00:26:09] Speaker 02:
This is from my outline in front of the Fifth Circuit. The court in defense distributed versus Platkin, and I cite it, could not have been more blunt. Quote, the transfer ended our control over the case. Close quote.

[00:26:23] Speaker 03:
Any issue about the impropriety of the transfer would have been needed to have been raised in the transferee district court here and then immediately brought up by Mandamus or something else to us. But none of that's been done.

[00:26:37] Speaker 02:
Well, of course, none of that's been done, but the argument in the Fifth Circuit, I can tell you, was what was the appropriate timing for Nicholas to have done that in the Fifth Circuit? And then there was the question, so what? What if they had done it timely? We said they didn't do it timely. They said they did. But then the appellate court was asking, well, so what? What if they did do it correctly? And the answer came back. The Fifth Circuit doesn't have jurisdiction over it anymore, and the most the Fifth Circuit could do was to have the district court ask either the Ninth Circuit or the Northern District of California nicely, may we have the case back?

[00:27:17] Speaker 02:
We think we sent it to you improperly.

[00:27:21] Speaker 02:
That was crystal clear in the Fifth Circuit.

[00:27:24] Speaker 02:
We'll hear from Mr. Kidd, but I believe we were all on the same page during oral argument about that one.

[00:27:34] Speaker 03:
Now, did anyone raise to the Fifth Circuit the argument that it was a mistake not to send the rest of the case to us?

[00:27:44] Speaker 03:
We didn't raise that on the appellate level. So either the cases will remain split or...

[00:27:54] Speaker 03:
maybe we'll be asked nicely whether we'll send it back. But I'm just trying to figure out the decision tree, what are the possibilities, how this could play out.

[00:28:03] Speaker 02:
The other plaintiff, which is CORE, C-O-R-R, that will remain in the Fifth Circuit. And that's just done because no one's asking for it?

[00:28:12] Speaker 03:
It's not in the card.

[00:28:13] Speaker 02:
Correct. We have not asked the Fifth Circuit to push it into California. And yes, that's the answer to your question, I believe. Okay. Yes. I think my time is up, but if you have any other questions, I'm happy to.

[00:28:29] Speaker 02:
Okay. All right.

[00:28:30] Speaker 03:
Thank you, counsel.

[00:28:36] Speaker 03:
All right. Then we'll hear rebuttal.

[00:28:39] Speaker 04:
Thank you, Your Honors.

[00:28:41] Speaker 04:
Just a few points here. First of all, my friend on the other side relied heavily on Carafino in his presentation. As a preliminary matter, Carafino's a summary judgment case, not a Rule 12 case.

[00:28:57] Speaker 04:
But in addition to that point, Your Honor, the questions in Carafino, according to this court, quote, the answers bore no more than a tenuous relationship to the actual questions asked.

[00:29:15] Speaker 04:
Here, what we have is quite different.

[00:29:18] Speaker 04:
Glassdoor says, tell us what's bad about the company. And the users answer the question. And they answer that question in a number of different ways. There was a statement about the comments not being defamatory. And I have a few examples of some of the cons that these folks provided when asked directly to provide negative comments.

[00:29:40] Speaker 01:
But the comments can't do it. It would have to be defamation at the prior stage there. Why would it be defamatory for them to solicit negative comments?

[00:29:53] Speaker 04:
Well, my view, Your Honor, is that by asking specifically for negative comments, they are helping, they are creating the content in part.

[00:30:04] Speaker 03:
I know, but I'm looking at the form that's Exhibit D to your complaint, and it starts with, Pros share some of the best reasons to work at Nicholas Ayer. Cons share some of the downsides of working at Nicholas Ayer. How can you make it, how could you make it more neutral?

[00:30:26] Speaker 04:
Well, Your Honor, I think the answer to your question is, how could you make it more neutral, is exactly what they did in roommates that the court found was immune. You know, roommates has Part of the forms and roommates were not immune, and part of them were. And the prompts that this court held were immune was a very open-ended question, and that is, quote, take a moment to personalize your profile by writing a paragraph or two describing yourself and what you're looking for in a roommate.

[00:31:01] Speaker 04:
So how they could have been neutral, Your Honors, is by saying, tell us about your time working at Nicholas Ayer. not tell us what's so bad about working at Nicholas Ayer. And you couple that with them requiring these folks to state that they are employees or former employees. And all of that working together renders the website.

[00:31:24] Speaker 01:
Why wouldn't we have viewed Yelp in a different light, for example, where you have a series of stars? And so just the fact that you can give anyone a one-star rating rather than a five-star rating makes that a possibility. Is there an obligation that Yelp start at, you can give from three to five stars, but you can't give, there has to be great inflation now for these?

[00:31:47] Speaker 04:
Well, Your Honor, I think every one of these cases, and the precedent is clear on this, I believe, that they have to be judged on their unique facts. And so to your question about Yelp, Your Honor, you know, I don't know what the answer to that is in terms of a one to five star rating. What I do know is Yelp doesn't directly say, tell us what's bad about the company. It just says, go from one to five.

[00:32:10] Speaker 04:
And so that's how I would distinguish Yelp factually. Your Honors, I know I'm over my time, but I do want to, if the court will allow me, just a brief indulgence in terms of what the Fifth Circuit law is. I mean, I think we're all basically on the same page. The Fifth Circuit no longer has control to directly reverse the district court decision and require the case to come back here. It can make the request that that be done if it so chooses, in my view. And to answer one of the questions asked by the panel, what the Fifth Circuit has said, if you want to directly appeal that, you file a rent of, where the Fifth Circuit does maintain control when it's not just a matter of a request.

[00:32:53] Speaker 04:
What the panel has indicated to us, and I believe what the opinion will probably ultimately reflect, is that if you want to directly challenge it, you have to file a writ of mandamus before the transfer order is effectuated. So that that's I think that's what the court was asking. So I really appreciate you. The court allowing me to argue this remotely, given my travel difficulties yesterday. Thank you very much. It was a bit of a nightmare.

[00:33:18] Speaker 03:
All right. All right. Thank you very much, counsel. Thank both counsels for their helpful arguments in this case. And the case just argued will be submitted and we will stand in recess for five minutes.