[00:00:00] Speaker 04: And we'll move on to the final case for today. [00:00:03] Speaker 04: Talon diversified holdings. [00:00:08] Speaker 04: And so I'm going to ask our courtroom deputy to confirm that we have all counsel present. [00:00:21] Speaker 04: OK, great. [00:00:26] Speaker 04: Yes. [00:00:27] Speaker 04: Well, obviously, give us some time. [00:00:30] Speaker 04: You can stand there if you want, but we've got some logistics behind you we got to carry out here. [00:00:37] Speaker 04: OK, give them a chance to sit down. [00:01:13] Speaker 04: OK, so before you begin, just a reminder here. [00:01:17] Speaker 04: So I see the time is being split ten five and five. [00:01:22] Speaker 04: All right, so when I preside, when we do this, it's going to be a hard ten, a hard five, a hard five. [00:01:27] Speaker 04: What that means is Mr. Boyer. [00:01:29] Speaker 04: OK, so you have ten. [00:01:31] Speaker 04: And I'm going to cut you off at ten. [00:01:35] Speaker 04: So we're not in a situation where you start going to twelve and then Mr. Gramatical is like, wait a second, I'm going to have 30 seconds. [00:01:41] Speaker 04: So you're going to get your time. [00:01:43] Speaker 04: If Mr. Boyer goes less than 10, then we can divvy up the extra time. [00:01:49] Speaker 04: But I'm going to cut him off at 10 to make sure you guys both have the time that you need, OK? [00:01:53] Speaker 04: All right. [00:01:56] Speaker 06: Mr. Daw, you may proceed when you're ready. [00:01:58] Speaker 06: May it please the court, Michael Daw, on behalf of the appellants and cross-appellees. [00:02:04] Speaker 06: And I may leave some time for my colleagues here. [00:02:09] Speaker 06: I would like to reserve two minutes and two minutes on the cross-appeal and the thank you on the reply. [00:02:15] Speaker 06: Price versus Gurney applies here. [00:02:19] Speaker 06: It either applies as a rule of subject matter jurisdiction or it applies as a mandatory rule of stare decisis. [00:02:28] Speaker 06: Even the district court order, which we appeal in part, concluded that Price is applicable and it has a mandatory rule. [00:02:38] Speaker 06: If the bankruptcy is filed by an unauthorized individual, the only authority the court has is to dismiss that bankruptcy. [00:02:47] Speaker 06: We submit, Your Honors, that price is a rule of subject matter jurisdiction. [00:02:53] Speaker 06: And a core aspect of our argument in that regard is the unique characteristic of the filing of a bankruptcy under federal bankruptcy law, and that is [00:03:05] Speaker 06: that on the instant of the filing, in this case of a Chapter 11, there is a property transfer which is effected. [00:03:14] Speaker 06: Under 11 USC 301 and 541, a bankruptcy estate is created, literally the instant that bankruptcy is filed. [00:03:27] Speaker 06: And in order for the district court's rule [00:03:32] Speaker 06: to withstand analysis, the district court's rule below is even an unauthorized bankruptcy conveys or creates or starts subject matter jurisdiction in a bankruptcy court. [00:03:47] Speaker 06: Our submission is that in order for that rule to be correct, one must presuppose that the filing of that bankruptcy by an unauthorized individual has transferred all authority [00:04:00] Speaker 06: over that property to the bankruptcy court. [00:04:03] Speaker 06: We used an extreme example. [00:04:05] Speaker 05: Council, let me, so you feel really strongly about this. [00:04:10] Speaker 05: Your clients must feel really strongly about this because they've spent a lot of money to fight about this issue in the bankruptcy court and then in the district court and now in front of us. [00:04:25] Speaker 05: And they're not only spending their money, [00:04:29] Speaker 05: to hire you, but they're spent, they're paying for all these guys too, when you lose, right? [00:04:34] Speaker 05: Because they keep getting, so question for you, at what point are you going to drop this? [00:04:40] Speaker 05: Like if we disagree with you, will you take our word for it and, or are you gonna, because you're, it seems to me, it seems to me you're doing, I mean, maybe you think you're doing a nice service, paying, spending your client's money to, [00:04:57] Speaker 05: to help to make bankruptcy law better for America or something like that. [00:05:01] Speaker 05: But I'm trying to figure out how this is helpful to your clients because you're fighting a battle that you keep losing and now you're on something like an interlocutory appeal to us and you're trying to win. [00:05:15] Speaker 05: It could be that we find that there's no jurisdiction over this whole thing which is a waste of time and money and that'll just be more money that your clients have to spend for you and for the other side. [00:05:25] Speaker 05: and all about this issue that it just seems like much ado about nothing, unless you're, I guess you're just a really public spirited, your clients are just really public spirited and really feel strongly about this issue. [00:05:38] Speaker 06: Your honor, my clients have no choice. [00:05:40] Speaker 06: They have what? [00:05:41] Speaker 06: Have no choice. [00:05:43] Speaker 06: The central issue in this whole. [00:05:45] Speaker 05: They filed this lawsuit, the one that's right, that's before us, right? [00:05:48] Speaker 05: They filed it. [00:05:49] Speaker 06: After the underlying. [00:05:50] Speaker 06: So they had a choice, I think. [00:05:52] Speaker 06: Yes, your honor. [00:05:56] Speaker 05: But they had a choice whether to settle the case and make the original bankruptcy that they think was unfair to them to make it go away. [00:06:05] Speaker 05: And they chose to settle it. [00:06:07] Speaker 06: Under duress. [00:06:09] Speaker 05: OK. [00:06:09] Speaker 05: And then they decided later they had a choice to bring in a lawsuit. [00:06:13] Speaker 05: And they've had a choice to do all these appeals. [00:06:18] Speaker 05: It's not just a choice. [00:06:19] Speaker 05: I mean, they're spending their hard-earned money for this on your fees and their fees on the other side. [00:06:26] Speaker 05: Seems to me somebody needs to be able to tell your clients, you may be throwing good money after bad at some point. [00:06:33] Speaker 05: And when will that point be? [00:06:36] Speaker 06: Well, I guess, Your Honor, if we lose here, I don't know that there's anywhere else to go. [00:06:41] Speaker 06: We could petition the United States Supreme Court. [00:06:43] Speaker 06: Frankly, I think this is an issue that is worthy of the Supreme Court because it calls into question Price versus Gurney. [00:06:50] Speaker 06: And what does Price versus Gurney mean? [00:06:52] Speaker 06: This is the United States Supreme Court rule. [00:06:55] Speaker 06: As this [00:06:56] Speaker 06: District court order stands right now the law of the United States according to this district court order Allegedly consistent with price versus gurney is that if I am a single shareholder of Apple Corp And I go and file a bankruptcy of Apple Corp All of the assets of Apple Corp are under the jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy Court on that instant that cannot pass muster Okay, let me ask judge Van Dyke's question another way. [00:07:21] Speaker 04: So whenever I get a day sheet Which is the the calendar sheet that has the cases and there are? [00:07:27] Speaker 04: seven numbers listed by it. [00:07:30] Speaker 04: Seven case numbers. [00:07:31] Speaker 04: That's not a great sign. [00:07:34] Speaker 04: I'm curious what efforts have been made to try to mediate this case. [00:07:38] Speaker 04: Kind of getting down to what Judge Van Dyke's question was. [00:07:41] Speaker 04: I think that we looked at the docket, the mediation questionnaire was filled out, but I don't think any formal steps have been taken, at least before our court. [00:07:48] Speaker 04: Have you thought about trying to mediate this case to resolve it because, you know, [00:07:53] Speaker 04: There could be three more case numbers. [00:07:55] Speaker 04: Lawyers can keep filing lawsuits. [00:07:57] Speaker 04: We know that's always the case. [00:07:58] Speaker 04: What efforts can you make to try to resolve this case once and for all? [00:08:02] Speaker 06: Efforts have been made, Your Honor. [00:08:05] Speaker 04: Before the Ninth Circuit, with the Ninth Circuit's mediation office? [00:08:07] Speaker 06: I'm not sure that we did with that, but there were two in the bankruptcy court. [00:08:13] Speaker 06: There's other litigation going on. [00:08:15] Speaker 06: This is a horror story. [00:08:16] Speaker 06: We understand that. [00:08:17] Speaker 04: Right, and normally a horror story, you don't want a sequel. [00:08:19] Speaker 06: I understand that there are some horror stories that you can't simply step out and say, we have been abused, we have been damaged, and we're just going to walk away and take it. [00:08:30] Speaker 05: Hold on a second. [00:08:30] Speaker 05: You say you can't simply step out. [00:08:33] Speaker 05: I mean, you can. [00:08:35] Speaker 05: Your clients can. [00:08:36] Speaker 05: And if they had a time machine and could race forward and say, wow, that's cost us another half a million dollars in fees, then they maybe would have wished they had. [00:08:46] Speaker 05: And so is that something that they might take into account in the mediation, I guess, is what? [00:08:52] Speaker 06: My clients are reasonable people. [00:08:53] Speaker 06: This is not what they're choosing to do with their life. [00:08:56] Speaker 03: This is what they've been obliged to. [00:08:58] Speaker 03: There's always a choice. [00:09:00] Speaker 03: There is. [00:09:01] Speaker 06: But sometimes the choice is capitulation, Your Honor. [00:09:04] Speaker 06: Sometimes that is the choice you offer. [00:09:07] Speaker 03: I don't see the decision to try and work something out as a capitulation. [00:09:11] Speaker 03: Sometimes it's the wise decision. [00:09:13] Speaker 03: And, you know, for my part, I think folks ought to think about it. [00:09:16] Speaker 06: I don't disagree objectively at all. [00:09:18] Speaker 06: I agree a hundred percent. [00:09:21] Speaker 06: I think it was Abraham Lincoln who some famous quote on, you know, try to settle your cases. [00:09:27] Speaker 06: It's a better place to be. [00:09:29] Speaker 06: We don't disagree. [00:09:30] Speaker 06: So not for a moment. [00:09:32] Speaker 06: May I just interject one thing? [00:09:34] Speaker 06: I've argued one case to the California Supreme Court. [00:09:37] Speaker 06: We lost every single step of the way. [00:09:41] Speaker 06: The Supreme Court took up the case. [00:09:44] Speaker 06: We won. [00:09:46] Speaker 06: And that's where we are here. [00:09:47] Speaker 06: Sometimes you just can't back out of a fight. [00:09:51] Speaker 06: The fight is presented to you. [00:09:53] Speaker 06: Either capitulate or do what you're doing. [00:09:58] Speaker 05: And that's where it's a beautiful story. [00:10:00] Speaker 05: If you end up winning the last round, but if you lose the last round, you will, your clients will end up paying a ton of money. [00:10:09] Speaker 05: And I, I mean, you're their attorney, so you're their counselor, but I think it's probably important for them to know that the fact that they've been losing in front of all of these judges, they may continue to lose in front of judges. [00:10:23] Speaker 06: They won with judge Wilson in the district court substantially. [00:10:28] Speaker 06: The ruling of the district court order literally was, Judge Albert of the Bankruptcy Court, you took subject matter jurisdiction over matters as to which there wasn't even a colorable argument that the court had subject matter jurisdiction. [00:10:43] Speaker 05: Counsel, what the district court said is that half of this has to go back to state court. [00:10:47] Speaker 05: That's not a win. [00:10:48] Speaker 05: That means you go back to state court, and the state court could do this, could say the same thing and say, you know, we're going to dismiss this case. [00:10:55] Speaker 05: So all that is is just [00:10:57] Speaker 05: Possibly deferring the pain until later. [00:11:00] Speaker 06: It is possibly that your honor But it did the district court said more than half it said with respect to the attorney defendants Lebov and Forsythe there are multitudinous orders, which the Plaintiffs have have contested you bankruptcy court need to review all of those orders so I want you to be able to continue thing But let me just since I hope that your clients will watch this. [00:11:22] Speaker 05: I hope you're yeah I hope your clients will watch this and see that [00:11:26] Speaker 05: It may not be that you're losing these because of because, you know, these unreasonable judges or something like that. [00:11:34] Speaker 05: It may be because your position has some challenges to it, your legal position. [00:11:40] Speaker 05: And so hopefully they will take that into account and whether to continue with this or whether to possibly mediate, settle this case. [00:11:48] Speaker 06: I believe they are watching and I'm not certain at this moment, but it's my understanding they are so. [00:11:54] Speaker 06: I've exhausted my time. [00:11:56] Speaker 04: Well, you still have 10 minutes. [00:11:58] Speaker 04: Oh, I apologize. [00:11:59] Speaker 04: No, again, you don't have to. [00:12:01] Speaker 04: Look, there's a lot of guys over there. [00:12:03] Speaker 04: So if you want to reserve the rest of your time and then come back to us, that's... I would like to reserve the rest of the time. [00:12:10] Speaker 04: I'll do that. [00:12:10] Speaker 04: Thank you. [00:12:10] Speaker 04: That's fine. [00:12:23] Speaker 02: Good morning, Your Honors, and may it please the Court, Ethan Boyer on behalf of Appellees Klein and Wilson and Michael S. Leboff. [00:12:31] Speaker 02: My clients are similarly situated with Appellees Go Forsyth and Mark Forsyth, and so I'm taking the laboring order with respect to this argument in that our positions are nearly identical. [00:12:46] Speaker 02: Both sets of lawyers were appointed by the Bankruptcy Court to represent the debtor in this case. [00:12:52] Speaker 02: appellant parks diversified limited in the underlying bankruptcy that is obviously at the at the center of this case and I would agree with your honors comments my clients were brought into this case involuntarily a year after they believe they had resolved the matter by way of a stipulation and dismissal where the claims against them were released by the appellants and were brought into this case [00:13:19] Speaker 02: and have been fighting it since. [00:13:23] Speaker 02: We believe that the district court's ruling was correct. [00:13:28] Speaker 02: Um, it affirmed the bankruptcy court's orders. [00:13:31] Speaker 02: It did not remand, uh, my clients or the go Forsyth clients to state court. [00:13:36] Speaker 02: And there's really nothing further to do on the merits, uh, uh, with respect to, to that ruling. [00:13:42] Speaker 02: And I wanted to address, um, the question that your honors raised by way of the order, I believe last week with respect to the things remember versus Petrarca case. [00:13:52] Speaker 02: uh... we believe that matters and that doesn't relate to you all because you you all were not remanded is that's correct and and that was the point i was going to make an under under uh... the circus precedent in the san francisco versus uh... pg any case since they were not remanded uh... it's really an applicable uh... and so we you heard our our questions at it you know i have a feeling of what's going on but obviously if we can't know what's going on from here as far as the [00:14:21] Speaker 05: the practical, emotional, whatever's going on here, this is family dispute. [00:14:27] Speaker 05: Is there any chance that this case could settle, mediate something, or is it just people are so angry and frustrated because that seemed like they're acting rationally? [00:14:39] Speaker 02: I mean, certainly my clients, they're just the attorneys who represented the debtor in the bankruptcy case. [00:14:44] Speaker 02: It's not an emotional issue for them. [00:14:47] Speaker 02: I think that they would be [00:14:48] Speaker 02: uh, open to, to resolving the case. [00:14:51] Speaker 02: I don't want to get into specifics of what has been discussed at, at various points. [00:14:57] Speaker 02: Um, but, um, but certainly they would, they would be open, open to that. [00:15:02] Speaker 02: Um, you know, they believe this case had been resolved by way of stipulation and a release and a year. [00:15:08] Speaker 02: And by the way, the, the appellants had counsel, uh, competent counsel, bankruptcy counsel, experienced bankruptcy counsel and Marshack Hayes firm out of Orange County to represent them. [00:15:18] Speaker 02: In connection with that stipulation and release of the professionals that were appointed by the bankruptcy court, Klein and Wilson go foresight. [00:15:29] Speaker 02: So this case, this second phase of the case, the Act 2, as it's referred to by the district court in its opinion, which is thorough and detailed, [00:15:40] Speaker 02: um, is really an effort to somehow undo the effects of that stipulation so that they can sue my clients and go foresight for various tort claims relating to their, um, representation of parks diversified in the bankruptcy. [00:15:55] Speaker 05: Can I ask you a kind of technical bankruptcy question? [00:15:58] Speaker 05: So I may not understand everything I'm asking you about here, but, um, so if I understood the district court concluded that [00:16:07] Speaker 05: that the bankruptcy court had ancillary jurisdiction over your claims because of the settlement. [00:16:14] Speaker 05: Under the non-bankruptcy removal statute, so not the bankruptcy removal statute, I think we have a Supreme Court precedent that says ancillary, maybe it's not a Supreme Court precedent, maybe it's a Ninth Circuit precedent, but we have precedent that says ancillary jurisdiction is not enough to remove. [00:16:29] Speaker 05: In other words, you have to have, you can't remove just based on ancillary jurisdiction. [00:16:33] Speaker 05: So is that a problem if [00:16:36] Speaker 05: the district court was right that the bankruptcy court only had ancillary jurisdiction, does that mean that it should not have allowed the claims to be removed? [00:16:47] Speaker 02: No, Your Honor. [00:16:49] Speaker 02: It can be allowed to be removed on the basis of the reservation of jurisdiction, specifically in the order approving the stipulation. [00:16:57] Speaker 05: Well, I think it's SIGENTA, Crop Protection v. Henson, 2002 Supreme Court case, [00:17:05] Speaker 05: says that removal does not dispense with the need for compliance or statutory requirements. [00:17:09] Speaker 05: Ancillary jurisdiction, therefore, cannot provide the original jurisdiction that petitioners must show in order to qualify removal under 1441, which is not the bankruptcy removal statute. [00:17:18] Speaker 05: So is the bankruptcy removal statute somehow different? [00:17:22] Speaker 02: It is, Your Honor. [00:17:22] Speaker 02: I mean, it specifically allows for removal based on ancillary jurisdiction and also on [00:17:30] Speaker 05: This circuit's opinion in in Ray Franklin Relating specifically it allows for removal jurisdiction for claims or cause of action under section 1334 But ancillary jurisdiction is not a 1334 I'm trying to figure out is whether or not the district the base board had to have core jurisdiction over your claims and [00:17:57] Speaker 05: or if that was a problem. [00:17:59] Speaker 02: And we argued, and we do believe. [00:18:01] Speaker 02: I know you argue that they do have court. [00:18:02] Speaker 02: They do have court jurisdiction. [00:18:03] Speaker 05: I know, but I'm just trying to say, if the district court was right, does that cause a problem under this? [00:18:10] Speaker 02: I don't believe it does in that the bankruptcy court is allowed to reserve jurisdiction to enforce its order. [00:18:18] Speaker 05: That makes some sense to me intuitively. [00:18:21] Speaker 05: Otherwise, I'm not sure if you, even though you affirmatively [00:18:27] Speaker 05: retain jurisdiction to enforce your order then you'd have to be but but under the the actual language of the statutes i'm not sure how that works and it didn't need to be i understand to the it must be right because or seems like it should be right because otherwise you're relying on state courts you know if you if you release claims you'd be relying on state courts that that seems like federalism problem the other way i don't know correct and under the barton doctrine there is [00:18:53] Speaker 02: no ability for the state court to hear those types of claims against court appointed officers such as client. [00:18:59] Speaker 05: I guess you could say that the jurisdiction relates back to the original removal somehow. [00:19:03] Speaker 05: Um, that, you know, I don't know. [00:19:06] Speaker 02: Uh, correct. [00:19:06] Speaker 02: And there's also a line of, of cases that we cited the Schultz case, um, the in Ray, uh, in Ray Miles case, the claims based on conduct as [00:19:19] Speaker 02: bankruptcy-appointed officers can only be heard in the federal courts. [00:19:23] Speaker 02: In other words, abusive process claims against an attorney for a debtor in bankruptcy cannot be brought in state court, has to be brought in federal court. [00:19:33] Speaker 02: And those are, and I believe one of those cases involves a legal malpractice case as well. [00:19:39] Speaker 05: And those were- What if we were to conclude that some of the claims, you know, the complaint here is sprawling and crazy. [00:19:45] Speaker 05: And so what if we conclude that some [00:19:48] Speaker 05: were covered by core jurisdiction, but maybe others weren't. [00:19:51] Speaker 05: What is our analysis of that? [00:19:53] Speaker 05: Do you take the others under ancillary jurisdiction? [00:19:55] Speaker 05: You take the ones under core and then? [00:19:57] Speaker 02: You would take them under ancillary jurisdiction. [00:19:59] Speaker 05: And then you wouldn't have this possible problem of not being able to remove under ancillary because you could have removed the under the core for the certain ones and then? [00:20:06] Speaker 02: Correct, Your Honor, correct. [00:20:08] Speaker 02: And they're all covered by [00:20:10] Speaker 02: by the by the court's ability to enforce its its order effectuate its order, the stipulation and dismissal, which is specifically reserved jurisdiction to do. [00:20:20] Speaker 02: And I don't want to go over my time here. [00:20:22] Speaker 02: You got two minutes. [00:20:23] Speaker 02: Two minutes. [00:20:24] Speaker 02: OK. [00:20:25] Speaker 02: So we believe the district court correctly held that the bank's bankruptcy court was well within its authority to to effectuate its stipulation and dismissal order. [00:20:38] Speaker 02: We also believe [00:20:39] Speaker 02: that the district court and the bankruptcy appellate opinion from the 10th Circuit in Ray JD holdings correctly analyze the price versus gurney case to find that under more recent precedent the arbor case and various other cases. [00:20:57] Speaker 02: that you have to have a clear indication from Congress that the authorizing jurisdictional statutes want to imbue a procedural bar, such as lack of authority to file a petition with jurisdictional consequences. [00:21:09] Speaker 02: And those jurisdictional statutes for the bankruptcy courts and for the federal courts to hear bankruptcy cases, 28 USC 1334 and 28 USC 157, [00:21:24] Speaker 02: um, do not, um, imbue, uh, uh, any jurisdictional consequences to a lack of authority. [00:21:32] Speaker 02: The recent Third Circuit, uh, opinion that we, we cited to Your Honors and in a letter brief, uh, in Ray Whitaker, uh, Clark and Daniels came to that same conclusion. [00:21:42] Speaker 05: Am I right in thinking that we would be, if we were to reach the conclusion that your colleague on our side wants, we would be creating a circuit split? [00:21:50] Speaker 02: That's correct, Your Honor. [00:21:51] Speaker 02: Yeah. [00:21:51] Speaker 02: That's my, that's- On price. [00:21:53] Speaker 02: and and so far i believe they're only lower court bankruptcy opinions uh... that support uh... that interpretation of price versus gurney which did not use the term subject matter jurisdiction uh... and there's a whole line as i'm sure your honors are aware of recent supreme court cases that deal with being requiring a clear indication drive-by jurisdiction drive-by exactly and and that's not present in the authorizing bankruptcy statutes here [00:22:24] Speaker 02: Submit on that right on time. [00:22:25] Speaker 04: Well, thank you. [00:22:26] Speaker 04: All right. [00:22:26] Speaker 00: Thank you counsel Please the court Paul grammatical appearing for defendants and Cross appellants Darrell white William London Mac sharp and commercial one London white LLP and [00:22:52] Speaker 00: So, Your Honors, just to give you a little bit of background on where my clients are situated in this procedural morass, we appeared in this case. [00:22:59] Speaker 00: My clients are all attorneys and a law firm. [00:23:02] Speaker 00: They were brought into this case because they purportedly undertook representation of a corporation that the plaintiffs allege they didn't have authority to represent. [00:23:13] Speaker 00: Based on that core allegation, they were brought into what is essentially an intra-familial dispute between parents and a son [00:23:21] Speaker 00: over who controls this corporation, Parks Diversified, which is the debtor for purposes of the bankruptcy. [00:23:28] Speaker 00: When we appeared in this case, the matter had already been removed to the bankruptcy court. [00:23:34] Speaker 00: So from our point of view, we didn't remove it. [00:23:38] Speaker 00: We appeared. [00:23:39] Speaker 00: We were in the bankruptcy court. [00:23:40] Speaker 00: We brought an anti-SLAT motion. [00:23:42] Speaker 00: That was granted on the basis that the entire case, as to our clients, was barred by the litigation privilege. [00:23:49] Speaker 00: Um, so we prevail, we get a judgment, we go to the district court, then the district court issues this order and the, the justices have already alluded to it, essentially saying, well, the district court validly exercise supplemental jurisdiction as to some of it, but not as to these other claims. [00:24:04] Speaker 00: So as to those other claims, Mike, those involve my client and two of the other co-defendants who are, uh, Becker and, um, uh, David Klein. [00:24:16] Speaker 00: So, [00:24:16] Speaker 00: What I'm urging the court today is that the district court, I'm urging the court two things. [00:24:21] Speaker 00: One, the district court's order is reviewable by the Ninth Circuit. [00:24:25] Speaker 00: I know there were some concerns about that. [00:24:28] Speaker 00: And two, the district court order was erroneous and should be reversed to the extent it holds that the district court did not, that there was no supplemental. [00:24:38] Speaker 05: So three minutes, tell us things remembered. [00:24:40] Speaker 05: That seems like a problem for you. [00:24:41] Speaker 00: Okay, things remembered. [00:24:42] Speaker 00: So things remembered is, [00:24:46] Speaker 00: It stands for the proposition that if an order remands a removed bankruptcy case to state court because of a timely raised defect in removal procedure or lack of subject matter jurisdiction, a court of appeals lacks jurisdiction to review that order. [00:25:01] Speaker 00: Well, as we know from things remembered, 1447D has to be read in conjunction with 1447C. [00:25:09] Speaker 00: Well, what 1447C says is if at any time before final judgment, [00:25:14] Speaker 00: it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded. [00:25:21] Speaker 00: The case. [00:25:21] Speaker 00: Well, in this particular case, the district court didn't remand the entire case. [00:25:26] Speaker 00: They determined that it had core original jurisdiction over a portion of it and then declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over other portions, the portions that involve my client. [00:25:39] Speaker 00: What I suggest to you is that was error because [00:25:43] Speaker 00: I mean, there's a few different ways you can go about it. [00:25:45] Speaker 00: You can determine that the claims were core claims, as you previously alluded to. [00:25:51] Speaker 00: If they're core claims, then the district court also had subject matter jurisdiction over any claims related or inextricably intertwined. [00:25:58] Speaker 05: So you read 1447D as only applying when the entire case, as we can't review when the entire case is being remanded, but if only a portion of the case [00:26:08] Speaker 05: What happened? [00:26:09] Speaker 00: Correct. [00:26:09] Speaker 00: Because if you follow that logic, if only a portion of it is getting remanded, that means the district court had original jurisdiction over the entire case. [00:26:19] Speaker 00: And therefore, you could still remand a portion of it, but you would still have jurisdiction because that would be a situation where you're declining to exercise supplemental or ancillary jurisdiction over the remaining claims. [00:26:32] Speaker 00: That's the situation here. [00:26:33] Speaker 00: But the court could have exercised that ancillary jurisdiction [00:26:38] Speaker 00: and once determined it had court jurisdiction, and it should have, because the claims against my client are based on the same factual premise. [00:26:46] Speaker 05: Are there any cases that have addressed this issue that you're talking about from as far as whether or not 1447D replies when a part of a case is remanded and part of it is not? [00:27:02] Speaker 00: None specifically on that point, but I'd like to direct the court to Inray Pegasus Gold Corp. [00:27:07] Speaker 00: 394 F 3rd 1189 1195 that's a Ninth Circuit case and in that case it says pursuant to 28 USC section 1367 district courts have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related in the action within the court's original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article 3 that's the situation here [00:27:31] Speaker 00: The remaining claims involve a core nucleus of operative facts and would ordinarily be expected to be resolved in one proceeding. [00:27:40] Speaker 00: It obviously makes sense for them to be resolved in this proceeding because they involve the same core factual question, whether or not Mr. Klein had authority to act on behalf of the corporation. [00:27:51] Speaker 00: Moreover, it's particularly relevant here because you'd be telling us, we need to start over. [00:27:56] Speaker 00: As you said, we've spent a ton of money. [00:27:57] Speaker 00: We've been dragged through the mud. [00:27:58] Speaker 00: Now we're having possibly a third appeal. [00:28:01] Speaker 00: on jurisdiction, and we're going to be sent back to the state court, and everyone's going to waste more money, and they're going to decide in our favor again that the litigation privilege applies. [00:28:10] Speaker 00: I've gone over my time. [00:28:11] Speaker 05: Can I ask you one thing that occurred to me, which is let's say that we said we don't have jurisdiction under 1447 because it says remanding a case, and we interpret that as the part of a case, right? [00:28:22] Speaker 05: So we send it back, and could a state court conclude [00:28:30] Speaker 05: That way, these are the kind of claim that has exclusive jurisdiction in bankruptcy court and therefore dismiss the claim when it gets back to state court. [00:28:41] Speaker 05: There would seem to be some tension between that and the district court's conclusion that it didn't have jurisdiction. [00:28:47] Speaker 00: I absolutely agree. [00:28:48] Speaker 00: That's the problem. [00:28:49] Speaker 00: If you look back at Judge Albert's orders in the bankruptcy court, he recognized the fact that all these same factual questions were bound up. [00:28:57] Speaker 05: But you could argue he was just wrong. [00:28:59] Speaker 05: And he would have got corrected by the Ninth Circuit, but they didn't have jurisdiction because of this jurisdiction stripping statute. [00:29:05] Speaker 05: And so, yeah, that may seem like it's inconsistent, but it's only inconsistent with the wrong district court order. [00:29:10] Speaker 05: You could argue that, I guess. [00:29:12] Speaker 00: And I think that there is a tension regarding what is reviewable and what is not. [00:29:16] Speaker 00: If you under the analysis and things remembered. [00:29:19] Speaker 00: But I think that the main point is that because the district court exercised some original jurisdiction, whether that was right or wrong, [00:29:27] Speaker 00: They also have the ability to exercise ancillary jurisdiction over the claims against my clients. [00:29:32] Speaker 04: All right, thank you very much, Counselor. [00:29:42] Speaker 01: May it please the Court, Gregory Emde for Defendant and Cross Appellant Todd Becker. [00:29:48] Speaker 01: Not to retread what my colleague just pointed out to the Court, I would like to point to the Court's notice that there is [00:29:57] Speaker 01: A 5th circuit decision that has dealt with the things remembered case 1447 has decided there is an exception to that non review review ability. [00:30:06] Speaker 01: It's based upon whether that order that's being reviewed is separate and distinct from that remand order itself. [00:30:12] Speaker 01: It's creates a carve out to the point where the cross appeals that are be have been filed are not just based on the remand. [00:30:18] Speaker 01: They're based on deciding whether the orders are core or non core. [00:30:24] Speaker 01: The core or the non-core proceeding are separate from the remand order because the issue with the district court, district court made it multiple rulings, multiple decisions throughout its lengthy over 50 page order. [00:30:37] Speaker 01: What it determined was that the claims against Mr. Becker were non-core. [00:30:44] Speaker 01: However, the cross appeal goes to the issue that they were saying that the district court erred in saying that it wasn't core. [00:30:51] Speaker 01: But the fact that they were so factually independent [00:30:54] Speaker 01: they could be decided. [00:30:56] Speaker 01: Not to mention that the plaintiffs repeatedly throughout the course of the case had decided that they had consented to the jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy Court. [00:31:07] Speaker 01: The U.S. [00:31:08] Speaker 01: Supreme Court and Commodity Futures Trading commercial versus score 478 U.S. [00:31:15] Speaker 01: 833 106 S Court said that the right to adjudication between Article III court [00:31:24] Speaker 01: is personal and therefore subject to waiver. [00:31:27] Speaker 01: Article one court, such as the bankruptcy, can decide matters as long as all parties consent. [00:31:33] Speaker 01: All parties consented in a stipulation that all the orders made regarding the motions dismissed, the anti-SLAP, were all final. [00:31:41] Speaker 01: Not to mention that there is a step by statute, plaintiff is required to file an objection or a statement saying non-consent to the bankruptcy court's jurisdiction. [00:31:51] Speaker 01: They did not do that. [00:31:52] Speaker 01: They consented, they filed multiple versions of their complaint in the bankruptcy court. [00:31:57] Speaker 01: They decided, and they decided to avail themselves of the bankruptcy court's jurisdiction. [00:32:03] Speaker 01: The, in writing Becker, Becker's slightly different position procedurally from the other cross-appellants because Becker came into the case relatively late. [00:32:13] Speaker 01: He was not in participating in the case until after the second manning complaint was filed in bankruptcy court. [00:32:19] Speaker 01: the judge Albert in the bankruptcy court gave leave to amend to amend the complaint. [00:32:23] Speaker 05: Can I ask you a question about that? [00:32:25] Speaker 05: So Becker was never involved in the state court case. [00:32:29] Speaker 05: He got added once it was removed. [00:32:31] Speaker 01: He was added in the bankruptcy court. [00:32:32] Speaker 01: He was in the state court case. [00:32:34] Speaker 01: He was removed to the bankruptcy case, but he was never served until later on down the line. [00:32:39] Speaker 05: And uh, and the uh, kale and white, what was there there? [00:32:44] Speaker 05: They were in state court and got removed or were they not added [00:32:49] Speaker 05: I thought I heard him say that they, you're not sure. [00:32:51] Speaker 05: I'm not sure. [00:32:52] Speaker 05: I'm not sure of their procedural position. [00:32:55] Speaker 05: Do you think that matters for purposes of, it's an order remanding a state to the state, case to the state court. [00:33:02] Speaker 05: It's complicated because the district court did not remand the entire case, remanded part of it. [00:33:07] Speaker 05: But if what it remanded was somebody who was not in the case until it was in bankruptcy court, then it's not technically, I mean, in some ways it's not a remand because it never were in state court. [00:33:18] Speaker 05: Does that matter? [00:33:19] Speaker 01: Well, you're at that point it I don't I don't frankly, I don't believe it matters too much that juncture because we we were served in the bankruptcy court multiple times. [00:33:27] Speaker 01: It wasn't just a situation where we were served with the state court case removed to a bankruptcy case. [00:33:32] Speaker 01: And then we were served multiple. [00:33:34] Speaker 01: We were served. [00:33:35] Speaker 01: We didn't appear in the case until after the First Amendment complaint in the in the bankruptcy case. [00:33:40] Speaker 01: Therefore, we've been in bankruptcy this entire time. [00:33:42] Speaker 01: We have never appeared in the state court case. [00:33:45] Speaker 01: Todd Becker has never appeared in the state court case. [00:33:47] Speaker 01: He's been in the state court. [00:33:48] Speaker 01: He wasn't a part of the remand or the removal, I mean. [00:33:52] Speaker 01: And by the fact that he was dragged through this for three years, litigation to be told that he has to go back to the state court regarding, he's had multiple instances. [00:34:02] Speaker 01: We're talking about a core versus non-core. [00:34:04] Speaker 01: There's been multiple orders. [00:34:05] Speaker 01: I think there's been almost a half dozen orders decided in the bankruptcy court. [00:34:09] Speaker 01: plaintiff desired to appeal the jurisdictional issues, or he could have made a statement saying he refused the jurisdictional issues, not consenting to the bankruptcy. [00:34:18] Speaker 01: They decided not to do that. [00:34:19] Speaker 01: That was the decision. [00:34:21] Speaker 01: The whole point of the consent of the bankruptcy court is that bankruptcy court is not required to have expressed consent. [00:34:28] Speaker 01: Bankruptcy court can infer consent, even if they don't have it expressed. [00:34:32] Speaker 01: By doing that, it avoids gainsmanship and waiting until you decide if you've got a good order or not, and that's exactly what's happening here at this point. [00:34:39] Speaker 01: plaintiff got a bad order. [00:34:40] Speaker 01: They got their claims dismissed and they decided to appeal after that. [00:34:44] Speaker 01: This is this is a three year long engagement through the bankruptcy court in the district court. [00:34:50] Speaker 01: There's been multiple instances where plaintiff could have decided to not submit to the bankruptcy course jurisdiction. [00:34:57] Speaker 01: They decided to file motions remand, but they did not file the proper procedure as dictated by statute. [00:35:04] Speaker 04: Last question for you. [00:35:05] Speaker 04: We asked [00:35:06] Speaker 04: opposing counsel about mediation, try to end this. [00:35:10] Speaker 04: What are your thoughts on that? [00:35:12] Speaker 01: I would heavily welcome mediation in this case. [00:35:16] Speaker 01: I have suggested it in numerous cases. [00:35:17] Speaker 01: We've talked about it at length with Judge Albert in the bankruptcy court. [00:35:21] Speaker 01: We believe this case would be ripe for mediation if we could ever get there. [00:35:25] Speaker 01: All right. [00:35:26] Speaker 04: Thank you. [00:35:30] Speaker 04: All right. [00:35:30] Speaker 04: I'm sorry. [00:35:30] Speaker 04: Mr. Gramatico, would you agree with that? [00:35:33] Speaker 04: Yes. [00:35:33] Speaker 04: All right. [00:35:34] Speaker 04: Thank you. [00:35:37] Speaker 06: You have a final agreement here. [00:35:39] Speaker 06: There's no reason not to try. [00:35:42] Speaker 06: Just a few points, if I may. [00:35:44] Speaker 06: Waste. [00:35:45] Speaker 06: From the very beginning, we have, through Judge Albert, through Judge Wilson, pointed out that the failure to address subject matter jurisdiction has been recognized by the United States Supreme Court, by all the circuits. [00:36:01] Speaker 05: Can we just, assuming you're wrong about that, I know that, like, just make that assumption. [00:36:06] Speaker 05: Assuming you're wrong about it. [00:36:08] Speaker 06: About which assumption? [00:36:09] Speaker 05: That Price is not a subject matter jurisdiction case. [00:36:13] Speaker 06: I'll assume Price is not a subject matter jurisdiction. [00:36:16] Speaker 05: Okay. [00:36:16] Speaker 05: Price is not a subject matter jurisdiction. [00:36:18] Speaker 05: And so the court did not err in agreeing that there was a settlement agreement. [00:36:22] Speaker 05: Assume for a second that the original case... No, no, no. [00:36:26] Speaker 05: I'm asking you to assume this, all right? [00:36:27] Speaker 05: This is your lawyer. [00:36:28] Speaker 05: This is what you do. [00:36:28] Speaker 05: You can set aside your own personal views. [00:36:31] Speaker 05: So can you assume with me for a second that the initial [00:36:36] Speaker 05: The district court approving the settlement was not an error under because either it wasn't subject matter jurisdiction or that it was fine to do that before getting to the question of whether or not he had authority to to file this. [00:36:54] Speaker 06: I can only go so far yarn because the record is that the settlement was under duress. [00:36:59] Speaker 06: So okay. [00:36:59] Speaker 05: Okay. [00:37:00] Speaker 05: You're really struggling to make that assumption. [00:37:02] Speaker 05: But can you do it? [00:37:03] Speaker 05: Can you do it? [00:37:04] Speaker 06: Okay. [00:37:04] Speaker 06: So we assume Judge Albert was, uh, it was okay for Judge Albert to approve the settlement. [00:37:10] Speaker 05: Yeah. [00:37:10] Speaker 05: Okay. [00:37:10] Speaker 05: And so if that's the case, what is left of all of that? [00:37:13] Speaker 05: This is going on today. [00:37:15] Speaker 06: Well, okay. [00:37:16] Speaker 06: Assuming it's correct. [00:37:18] Speaker 06: uh, and assuming, uh, the DCO, the district court order was correct with respect to Leboeuf and Forsyth, which still leaves a big question because there's, there's a big question as to what the DCO meant as to Leboeuf and Forsyth. [00:37:30] Speaker 06: But then there's still the, from the very beginning, we've pointed out allegations in this sprawling complaint, your honor, and I appreciate the court's comment on that and I can explain it, but there are allegations of torts which were committed before the bankruptcy. [00:37:48] Speaker 06: torts which were committed after the bankruptcy. [00:37:52] Speaker 06: Those were never a part of that stipulation. [00:37:56] Speaker 06: You would have to contort that stipulation. [00:37:59] Speaker 06: You would have to misread it. [00:38:00] Speaker 05: So let me ask you this, though. [00:38:02] Speaker 05: So assuming, I'll make an assumption and assume you're right about that, all right? [00:38:06] Speaker 05: So I'll meet you on your assumption. [00:38:08] Speaker 05: I think part of that, though, is that there is stuff that is. [00:38:11] Speaker 05: I mean, you would agree that there is stuff that's right in your complaint, that you are saying they didn't have [00:38:18] Speaker 05: authority to to file the bankruptcy and that that's not before or after that's right in the wheelhouse. [00:38:24] Speaker 05: So what do we do? [00:38:26] Speaker 05: What would we do with those claims? [00:38:28] Speaker 05: Those claims would be would be core jurisdiction, at least ancillary. [00:38:32] Speaker 06: What? [00:38:33] Speaker 06: I don't think so. [00:38:34] Speaker 06: Well, now I have to put my head into your assumption. [00:38:37] Speaker 05: Yes, that's why I did that to you. [00:38:40] Speaker 06: Okay, so assuming are we assuming Judge Albert really had [00:38:45] Speaker 06: subject matter juristic 100% 100%. [00:38:47] Speaker 05: This is really important. [00:38:48] Speaker 05: The reason I'm forcing you to do this is because if that's the case, I just want I want I want you and your clients to know if you I think that's been the struggle for this whole thing is that you've really been having difficulty releasing your view about this and saying, well, what if I might be wrong and that that's what you have to be able to do in order to to make litigation risk assessments and proper litigation risk assessments lead to [00:39:15] Speaker 05: settlement. [00:39:16] Speaker 05: Your honor, I've been doing this 40 years. [00:39:19] Speaker 06: Okay. [00:39:19] Speaker 06: So I do understand that. [00:39:21] Speaker 06: I genuinely understand and appreciate that, your honor. [00:39:24] Speaker 06: Um, so, so assuming Judge Albert had subject matter jurisdiction, assuming he had the jurisdiction to approve the settlement, we still got our pre and our post claims that weren't part of the settlement. [00:39:35] Speaker 05: But so what should the district court have done here or the bankruptcy or district court have done? [00:39:40] Speaker 06: What it should have done under Price versus Gurney, assume it's not a subject matter jurisdictional holding, Price versus Gurney says, if no authority of the filing individual, that one shareholder of Apple who goes down and files the unauthorized bankruptcy, if that person has no authority, then the bankruptcy court has zero authority to do anything other than dismiss the case. [00:40:06] Speaker 06: So we present. [00:40:08] Speaker 05: Let me go back to what we're assuming here. [00:40:10] Speaker 05: Let's assume that Price did not prevent them from, did not prevent the district court from approving the settlement, which included, remember, releasing the claims. [00:40:19] Speaker 05: Let's assume that those claims were properly released. [00:40:22] Speaker 05: Do that for me. [00:40:24] Speaker 05: Then what should, then what was the right result for the district court in this case? [00:40:29] Speaker 05: Could the district court remove? [00:40:33] Speaker 05: Assuming that everything, could the district court, was the removal improper? [00:40:37] Speaker 05: Was the removal improper, assuming the district court did not violate price in approving the settlement? [00:40:43] Speaker 06: Was the removal improper? [00:40:45] Speaker 06: I believe it was. [00:40:46] Speaker 05: Why? [00:40:46] Speaker 05: That's what I want to know from you. [00:40:47] Speaker 05: Why? [00:40:47] Speaker 06: Because the removal, when we make a factual challenge to the removal, so difference between factual and facial challenge, we make a factual challenge to the removal. [00:41:00] Speaker 06: That creates an evidentiary question of fact at the point of removal. [00:41:06] Speaker 06: evidentiary question of fact in this record, the sole record or the sole evidence on the issue of whether Mr. Klein ever had authority. [00:41:17] Speaker 06: There is no evidence. [00:41:19] Speaker 06: None. [00:41:19] Speaker 05: So I think the answer I'm hearing from you is I just can't let price go. [00:41:24] Speaker 05: I love price. [00:41:25] Speaker 05: The price is right. [00:41:26] Speaker 05: Like this is this is. [00:41:27] Speaker 05: And so you I mean, that's what everything gets back to price on you, which has been how you've litigated the case so far. [00:41:34] Speaker 06: But I don't think the Supreme Court decision. [00:41:38] Speaker 06: So let's assume it's not a subject matter jurisdiction. [00:41:41] Speaker 06: It says in black letter, as Judge Wilson underlined, Price stands for this proposition, the one I've been articulating. [00:41:49] Speaker 06: That means when the case first comes to Judge Albert, he has a question of fact presented to him, and there's no evidence [00:41:57] Speaker 06: So if we assume Judge Albert could do what he did, that means notwithstanding Price saying you can't do anything, bankruptcy court, if the filer didn't have authority, Judge Albert had the authority to keep the case for 10 months, to appoint counsel, to initiate lawsuits against the 99% orders. [00:42:15] Speaker 05: Counsel, I think we understand your Price argument really well. [00:42:19] Speaker 05: I'm just going to ask you one more time. [00:42:20] Speaker 05: You've got three minutes. [00:42:22] Speaker 05: If the district court properly applied Price here, [00:42:25] Speaker 05: in the original. [00:42:27] Speaker 05: And we agree. [00:42:27] Speaker 05: If we agree with the district court, I'm not saying we do or don't, but if we do. [00:42:30] Speaker 06: Is this Judge Wilson? [00:42:31] Speaker 06: I just want to make sure we're correct on terms. [00:42:33] Speaker 06: Do you mean Judge Albert in bankruptcy court or Judge Wilson? [00:42:36] Speaker 05: Everything that has been said by the lower courts to this point about price is gospel. [00:42:41] Speaker 05: Like, okay, let's assume that for a second. [00:42:43] Speaker 05: Then what is wrong with what the lower courts decided as far as removal? [00:42:50] Speaker 05: And in this case, that's what I want to know. [00:42:53] Speaker 05: And when you answered the question last time, you immediately reverted back to saying, yeah, they applied price wrong. [00:42:59] Speaker 05: You can't do that. [00:42:59] Speaker 05: I'm not letting you do that. [00:43:00] Speaker 05: You're fighting the hypothetical. [00:43:02] Speaker 05: Do me a favor and say, if prices, if the lower courts were all correct about price, price is off the table, then what did the lower courts do wrong? [00:43:11] Speaker 06: If the district court's decision is correct on price, then we still have our pre-bankruptcy. [00:43:20] Speaker 05: And what is the upshot of that? [00:43:21] Speaker 05: OK, I understand it, but what is the upshot of that? [00:43:23] Speaker 06: We are literally at the start. [00:43:25] Speaker 05: Do you agree that at least part of this case, the district court then correctly granted, you agree that at least part of the case then, the part that's not on either end, the district court was okay to remove? [00:43:36] Speaker 06: I'm assuming that because you've asked me to, Your Honor. [00:43:38] Speaker 06: I don't agree with that. [00:43:40] Speaker 05: I've asked you to assume that it was correct about price, but I'm asking you about assuming that it was correct about price. [00:43:46] Speaker 05: Could it or could it not remove and address the [00:43:52] Speaker 05: Your claim that this person improperly filed the bankruptcy, did not have authority to file the bankruptcy. [00:44:05] Speaker 06: I've lost the question. [00:44:06] Speaker 06: I apologize, Your Honor. [00:44:11] Speaker 06: There is no issue in the record as to whether there was authority. [00:44:14] Speaker 06: The only evidence in the record is there was no authority. [00:44:17] Speaker 06: So we have to presuppose this entire appeal. [00:44:19] Speaker 06: But you did have a settlement. [00:44:21] Speaker 06: Judge Wilson presupposed the lack of authority because his holding says even an unauthorized bankruptcy creates subject matter jurisdiction. [00:44:34] Speaker 06: So we have to presuppose that lack of authorization as an underpinning of the district court order, which it is. [00:44:41] Speaker 06: And there's no evidence to the contrary. [00:44:44] Speaker 06: We challenged everybody. [00:44:46] Speaker 06: If we've made a mistake in setting forth the facts in this record by saying there's no evidence that supports David Klein had authority, bring it forth. [00:44:54] Speaker 06: Nothing. [00:44:56] Speaker 06: He didn't have authority. [00:44:58] Speaker 06: That's one of the reasons we're still here. [00:45:02] Speaker 06: This is a 1% owner who hires attorneys to try to extract a $30 million mall from his parents, which is their only living asset. [00:45:14] Speaker 06: That's what I mean when I say sometimes capitulation is not an option. [00:45:22] Speaker 06: Settlement at the point of a gun. [00:45:24] Speaker 06: Was that Reagan? [00:45:25] Speaker 06: I can't remember. [00:45:26] Speaker 06: We don't negotiate at the point of a gun. [00:45:28] Speaker 06: Anyways, I think. [00:45:31] Speaker 06: I wanted to address something Mr. M.D. [00:45:34] Speaker 04: said. [00:45:34] Speaker 04: Wrap it up because I think you're over time. [00:45:36] Speaker 06: We never ever, there's nothing in this record which would suggest we consented to Judge Albert's jurisdiction at any step of the way with the same passion I have here today. [00:45:46] Speaker 06: I stood in front of Judge Albert several times and he acknowledged it fairly. [00:45:50] Speaker 06: We never consented to jurisdiction nor can jurisdiction be created by consent. [00:45:55] Speaker 04: that's black heart thank you so thank you very much thanks to all the council in this case i appreciate judge and i can appreciate the prices right reference uh... my favorite prices right game was cliffhanger where the guy would yodel and fall off the mountain if the price wasn't right that was always my favorite uh... with that this matter submitted and we are adjourned i want to thank our courtroom deputy for stepping up today i really appreciate it