read because this a just so clear it's not one case that supports their position but i'll go i'm happy to go right to the meat because the question is the bankruptcy courts jurisdiction and in general of course the bankruptcy court has jurisdiction would have h that is in dispute the question is what is the meaning and legal effect of the order just missing the underlying case i do think is important however to go over the factual and procedural history a little bit because it's really important to stand up to see how we the only reasonable interpretation of nothing here in shell limit the debtor's right to seek damages including without limitation these in costs are suing to three  i or otherwise what's the only reasonable interpretation of that since you claim it's an ambiguous iran or what i would say pardon me for being  unambiguous applied so what the limit of this provision is might be ambiguous in a different situation here is what we maintain your i think what the bankruptcy court said is only retain jurisdiction over three o three i had nothing else and what ever paragraph seven of the dismissal order meant it couldn't mean doubt because otherwise much of the language that you're on her just stated would be to rule or verbal and then ask the parties to submit a proposed to her under certification of counsel and this was a highly negotiated document so that the order essentially stated that we agreed to it i don't remember whether i filed mr martin filed above but we clearly it wouldn't have been submitted under certification the less we all agreed to it nobody would have done that so i don't think there's other certification means it's telling the bankruptcy judge we both agree to the terms these terms that you ruled upon correct them to be clear obviously the parties cannot impose something on the court or the court rules but and i can't speak to why this is a common practice in this ok that's fine i just was curious about the procedure but if you can go on that that is what happened but going back to judge greenways question about the core language here it does say provided however that nothing you're in show limits debtors right to  meaning or otherwise you say it's it's an ambiguous so you say the sentence can end after damages but that's not really so because the two dependent clauses after that have different objectives right one is letting you know part of the scope of damages and one is letting you know what are the underlying statutes that statute or statutes that bender those damages possible right because you could you could write this shall limit the debtors right to seek damages pursuant to of my client is the fundamental drew was a violation of the automatic stat so that is certainly something that we knew about it something we mentioned in our dismissal motion but at the time of the dismissal hearing did we think ok we're going to follow a separate adversary proceeding or not our focus up to about point remember this whole procedural but procedure here was very unusual our focus of the valid point had been whether or not there was going to be a bankruptcy or entirely like you know interest but i don't know how it helps in looking at paragraphs because i'm confident that your adversary with the words of paragraph seven so how about this question what other statutory damages unequivocally fall within other  please report my name is craig martin i represent some of your rate and dishing creditors i think to answer judge greenways question about the or otherwise language i think in the context of this case has the record shows the or otherwise is not i was answering the question about is there any statutory other claim that could have been asserted under or otherwise so in the context of the case we have a bankruptcy case that's being dismissed  adversary proceedings don't get filed in bankruptcy cases that are dismissed there was other litigation pending between the parties the bankruptcy code under section three hundred and three i expressly gives the bankruptcy court the right to determine damages  is another example of somebody who could survive a dismissal so if you look at the seven circuit case called price versus roachford i think it is what the th circuit has said is that it's that the three hundred and sixty two dollars k right is a century a cause of action or damage claim that can be a bankruptcy case are not exclusive to the bankruptcy court makes court has original but not exclusive jurisdiction so to the extent that the or otherwise phrase referred to the lawsuit in california the three hundred and sixty two k right i think with the record reflects is is that in the bankruptcy judges mind it was clear that his order allowed there to be a proceeding under section three hundred and three in front of him and that with respect to any other item he did not retain jurisdiction and i think that's differently than saying is that paragraph seven of the order eliminating rights to assert damages elsewhere taken i don't understand your case so let me interject ye yes and you're asking us to accept your representation that they're on ambiguous on their face yes yes ok now so i got that so so when me what is the unambiguous interpretation of it so i think it's important to remember that paragraph five of the order set forth the explicit right to file a motion for damages under three o three i after seven that includes the language that you've been referring to that says nothing here and shall limit the right to seek damages comma including without limitation the three or three rights set forth in paragraph five or otherwise so to me or otherwise means whatever other rights they had to assert to retain damages this order does not give me something that i could wave in front of a court in california or the district court and say when they when the bankruptcy case was dismissed they or otherwise can't acidly that your position can't possibly afford to be sick i'm not i don't think my position is that it can't possibly include i think my position is that to the extent it includes it it's unambiguous that the bankruptcy court did not intend for it to be litigated in front of the bankruptcy judge so i believe in the bankruptcy courts mind it's a jurisdictional question not a substantive legal right question and so what the bankruptcy court said is and if you read the record you'll see that there were three or four hearings where the judge got in creasing way upset that the adversary proceeding wasn't dismissed the matter of fact i had and i didn't know that however i don't think that answers the question  what you're telling me is please take into account what the bankruptcy court said and what was happening at the hearings and what i'm asking you is you can't say that a clause is only in big us if you're asking me to rely on understand that but i'm sorry i'm not saying it well what i'm trying to say is that i don't view that it's ambiguous with respect to the substantive legal rights and the procedure and with respect to the substantive legal rights or otherwise is extremely broad but with respect to the procedure there is nothing in the order that says i bankruptcy court intend to retain my jurisdiction to adjudicate something other than a motion under section three hundred and three i after this make the case is closed and the reason i believe that's unambiguous is because bankruptcy courts don't have general jurisdiction if there's not a pending bankruptcy case in front of is because there are separate procedural rules and under the bankruptcy rules for a motion it's called a contested matter it's governed by bankruptcy will nine thousand and fourteen dollars an adversary proceeding which is governed by part seven of the bankruptcy rules which subjects the parties to all of the federal rules of civil procedure on discovery so the three o three i motion is a somewhat truncated proceeding whereas the adversary proceeding is a is a full blown f they believe that there is a different legal standard that governs the assessment of damages now the bankruptcy judge said i can grant you the relief under three hundred and three i that you would get under three hundred and sixty two k so what's the big deal i'm standing by ready to adjudicate these issues so i have to be honest with you i don't fully understand the strategy of my friends at the bar i may have done this differently i may have said matters or or related to arising from interpretation of the sword he went and interpreted it is that what this is meant to cover that he could go back in do as he did and say hey you know i i didn't mean you could bring in three sixty two k i believe so yes and that paragraph eight that you look at is quite quite often if not almost in every single bankruptcy order that we submit under the certification of counsel proceeding because we did a go she ate with and delaware under the local rules w negotiate orders after hearing we agree on them and we submit them and sometimes disputes arise afterwards and we'd prefer to go back to the bankruptcy judge to deal with those issues than to have to deal with in another form and so my view is  that the the approach that the judge took was entirely consistent with practice for him he told the parties what was in his mind when he when he made that decision  fortunately for us he adopted the interpretation that we put forward and the district court although for some different reasons i came to the same conclusion and i'm happy to get into sort of the ambiguity and the ny ambiguity in a standard review said you know what i think we're a little bit stuck on or otherwise would it what does that mean exactly it seems that in your briefs you basically argue it's limited to those claims or the nexus to your three o three i claim but we don't see that that that language in here the i view or otherwise to be quite right and i see it oftentimes in documents that we have the right to do a b and c and it includes but isn't limited to x y and z or all other categories that would that would fall within i mean if you look at paragraph seven including without limitation so what are you including without limitation you're including in the right to seek damages right so you're including within that the right to seek damages under three hundred and three or your right to seek damages otherwise and what i understood the bankruptcy court to say is exactly what judge greenway just said which is that if you have a right to seek damages under three hundred and sixty two dollars k there's nothing that prevents you from including that request in your three hundred and three application that you will file before me and i did not intend for the or otherwise language to confer upon this bankruptcy court jurisdiction that it does not have under the acts of congress that's how i interpret it and the reason i interpreted that way is because three o three i include specific categories of damages that could be asserted and they've raised an issue that in addition to the three o three i pad agrees of damages they want damages under three hundred and sixty two dollars k now those damages are the same attorneys fees cost and potentially punitive damages the only difference is that they say in three hundred and sixty two dollars k there's the word shall that if if there was an intentional and willful violation of the automatic stay which we dispute then it's essentially strict liability to award damages i think we litigate that from the bankruptcy court will find that the word shall in that context doesn't really mean shall it that the court still has a discretionary component to the award of those damages and so i view this dispute that the answer that question in this circuit is is quite interesting because that discussion always starts with the citation of travelers indemnity versus bail united states supreme court but they specifically said in pair and footnote four that they panel decisions that say to discuss it one is called trade secrets where the court said that unambiguous orders interpreted by bankruptcy court should be reviewed by abus discretion and then there's a caribbean petroleum case where the court seems to be saying that ambiguous orders sorry unambiguous orders also a review under the abuse of discretion standard and it looks like the only question that you potentially review on a plane or air dunno basis is whether the order is ambiguous or not and the only difference in the review standard is that if it's an ambiguous you review it with an abuse of discretion standard but if it's ambiguous you you are view it with an abuse of discretion standard so long as it's reasonable in the circumstances that reasonable in the circumstances is present in the and biggie was case discussion in the circuit and not in the unambiguous so i think that it's there's if you look at the case law the the standard is a little bit confusing to me it was at least but when i went through all of the cases i began to find a consistency and the presidential decision of the circuit i think the answer your question is is that rd circuit says we always review the bankruptcy courts review but don't water on or abus included three or three odd and i think whether that's you know whether that's done on the urge to know of a standard or an abuse of discretion i just don't see how god is possible you really have to rewrite the paragraph but also emphasize that a don't i view as mr martin does that is basically boilerplate language and it simply means that the court has a forwarding to review his own order and interpret it i don't think it changes the standard and i don't think the bankruptcy court boat so everyone was focusing on next i believe that the district court said connection whatever would you like it had to be connected to the three o three on motion i can't think of anything that is more intimately and intricately connected this was a single course of conduct the reason the bankruptcy was now faith is because its whole purpose was to violate the automatic state these things essential can't be separated so that's why we would respectfully submit that even if the court