interests that did he had helped steal from points the district court however took the extraordinary in unwarranted step of voiding the judgment after concluding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction motion also challenging subject matter jurisdiction act asking that the default judgment if thrown out for lack of diversity the district court rejected that first ruling on a different ground not grounded on a different ground law could subject under their their nonparty tried and they were not party to the underlying litigation in any respect that's that's correct although as we showed our papers they learned of the judgment and they violated the junction and i know that i'm not asking you get to the next question if you want to i want to make sure we're clear there nonparty for for purposes of the original injunction in order include person a is somebody that's in ball the court then enters an injunction that person b owns the company or sixty percent of the come what is person b to me just as a practical matter right so you know person b now has sixteen the company the person a who legitimately also has a right to six the company has has no remaining i think it is you sort of describe it to to do anything which person a supposed to do in that scenario i understand that's not this new area as you say knowledge of all these things but i want to just the more basic question well they would arguably have standing to make a rule sixty don't allow non parties to bring and i will talk to your colleagues about this in a minute but you know it doesn't allow for non parties to bring rule sixty motion i think they'd have to intervene and they could have done they could have they knew about the judgment and learned about the judgment we think that they knew about the injunction before they bought the a property i think there's evidence of that but there's no dispute that they knew of the judgment just a month or two after the work issue so they could  for them to affirmatively intervene and otherwise you balance based on the judgment that doesn't involve them about the ownership of a company that they have every right well we don't think they are we have to prove that they're bound what the the motion to enforce the judgment the proceeding was in the first place too because they were a non party we brought them in because under contempt theory were successor in interest theories that they could be of did they know about the injunction do they act in concert with your original defendants to violate it and we had a deuced evidence that that certainly showed that they had that was then that whole proceeding though was what was terminated prematurely original defendants who had filed the first rule sixty before motion one that was fully litigated denied by the district court and affirmed on appeal and the privity argument you're making is because they're shareholders they are in pretty well not all shareholders a detailed letter to the executives the representatives of in in the middle of two thousand and seven where he laid out his plan that he was going to file it rule sixty before motion that would save all because they all were in their interest were all along they all had taken this company so that's great for knowledge but what i don't understand how that has anything to do pretty it was representing their interest so the the  saying look i know that we're now facing this we want to keep this company that we have we don't keep it away from the plaintiffs so here's my plan i'm going to file this rule sixty four motion that's exactly what he did they knew about it they w judicata never applies to subject matter jurisdiction that's wrong did he doesn't even trying to fend it in in court in its appeal so all it's making are arguments about well this is really  the only court they cite the d c circuit which is the only circuit in d c circuit recognize that it was adopting a standard for non parties bringing rule sixty before motions that departed from the article base of standard that no other circuit has adopted at no other circuit has recognized that distinction and even in the case from the d c circuit they said well we we probably would continue with the arguable basis standard where privy plod so we think  there was pretty but we think that the standards in this case are clear that it's an arguable basis and the really the importance of the arguable base standard is the importance of finality of judge so you can't simply constantly  and if you look at the two main first of all the original defendants and the current respondents they all affirmatively describe hungering k f t as corporations they admitted that in their answers they affirmatively describe themselves as hungering corporations in their court filings and so that alone is evidence that gave rise to an arguable basis it's not a do over to see in the first instance what's the right answer although we think even if that was the right question that we would come out in the right but the question is far different it's was there any arguable basis was the exercise agreed those are the corporations there is surely unarguable based on this court said in his first ruling that the defendants in state own state certainly provided an arguable basis to conclude that there was diversity of citizenship but the court just ignored those admissions instead it focused on a handful of e mails that were sent by employees of defendants many years ago that referred to care as limited lying  there was no reason though for the district court to credit those e mails and hold them against players when the defendants also described the k f t entities as corporations in court filings so you have this competing evidence and even when you look at the language that the court gave in its own ruling and said that the issues were difficult and under explored that there were no cases analyzing the question that there was slippery news in the criteria and then it ultimately came out i merely ruling that a hung jury in k f t quote falls closer to elsie's then to corporations so those are given that analysis under the right arguable basis standard there was no way that the court properly could have avoided its judge that finally turning to rule twenty one well twenty one is designed for this kind of situation where there's a mystery tour of a supposedly non depressed event the court abused its discretion in not even undertaking the rule twenty one and now that dispensable party pedophilia was a marginal party it could be easily severed from this case it should have been severed there would have been no prejudice i see my time is up for the first thirteen minutes  here which is that did she is not the same as or see the underlying defendant or c may well have defrauded these plaintiffs and done other terrible things and may be subject to a money damages judgment in virginia what is so unusual here is that ten years after getting a default judgment against or c and the other defendants the plaintiffs filed this kind of unknown thing i've never seen it in thirty years of practice a motion nature of this entire proceeding where they have sought to enforce a judgment against a nonparty and i totally get that it's already i'm not i don't i'm not trying to figure out all of your problems you're going to have a lot of what i want to sort of figure out is i going to answer one question right is did the district court get it right on the sixty before motion and one way of getting there is to say sorry did i'm really sympathetic and probably the end of the day you're going i think the answer you are actually correct the textually will sixty be says a party or representatives i have sixty be right here are they are legal representative representative exactly can bring such emotion the we are certainly a putative party in the sense that they're trying to enforce a judgment against that kind of you again when you think about what israel says but they're not trying to enforce it i mean you know i mean that's the problem right i mean i guess we've got to decide whether you are a success or an interest or a party in some meaningful sense to determine whether you have standing and that's the standing question is the is a threshold one for us right we don't think we are we are clearly not a party as we stand here today right that's the think you got implication right that you could in theory be liable under eighteen abetting work until it were not for the judgment of contempt and not be a party at all right that if their theory works i'm not saying the the know you can test vigorously the question of the subject matter and personal jurisdiction at least for purposes of that you're entitled to raise the motion i think they have right they have made us again you know a party for purposes of the motion to enforce not to the underlying judge and i think judge yes you're exactly correct on that so it's only natural when somebody comes at you and says i'm going to force a judgment against you and i properly serve you with papers and i'm a stranger to the original judgment i come in and i say i bring a lot of arguments i say wait a second this is the strangest thing ever i live in hungry we are hungry arion and romanian companies these folks are trying to force a judgment that is not a judgment against us and so we say that and we also say and by the way  as we look at it this default judgment that was entered ten years ago has its problems and i totally get that and i think i think you at least i'll hype up a side that you've got a great argument that point the challenge i've got is under the rule you're not technically a party to the judgement you're attacked sixty before you're attacking a judgment you're not a party to that judgment and the oddity is if you prevail on that and or see just claim is the real bad actor here it believes his judgment and if he showed up he would have a very hard time making that claim you show up and now make it seem to me your argument is this should not be enforceable against me that argument i yeah right the underlying judgement being void i'm not sure how you have standing to make that are well you are again i think the judge as at least the rule itself doesn't draw the distinction between a party to the enforcement proceeding which we were served and brought into the enforcement proceeding versus a party to the underlying judgment again when it's it this is such a mindbender of the case because they're trying to do a thing that doesn't exist in our law and it's not set up for this in other words that they've made us a party to this proceeding so we show up they properly served us and then the question is well does that mean that we have to have our hands tied behind our back and we can wean out the problems with the underlying judgement and you know so you know it's as it may relieve a this is so crazy on so many levels and you know i certainly we think we have very i understand your point about whether or not we should be able to bring a rule sixty b motion i mean if in fact we're not able  and again we think we are given the fact that we've been hailed into court halfway across the world we decide to show up we could have had a choice at that point whether we just stay in hungary romania and see what it's like this has nothing to do with us let's assume that you could bring that motion than the one of the concerns i have is whether and i realize that judge brinkema had a great deal of discretion with respect to whether or not the server write this otherwise the spencer party but your colleague over there raised a number of issues about the uncertainty of what this e enough in sort of ferreting this out before bringing the l l c into the into the equation and i'm a little concerned about that given all the uncertainty in the amount of time it took to figure out that this energy was in fact an  orbital basis when the party who has previously showed up to defend the judgment has not made a particular event raise a particular defensive claim again i think the point is we are not or see so the arguable basis cmdr doesn't apply to us i think your honor alluded to this point earlier unless they establish pretty which is a very narrow exception to the rule that basically if you have a judgment against a does not bind b they say well you have some generally similar looked at these documents and she was close to this case having looked at this case now for more than ten years if you particular if you look at the deed of association for pedophilia which is the company a question and that's a j a twelve ninety one to twelve and so i think you you look at that on the one hand and you look at the governing law on corporations versus all kinds of other membership business associations this is not in the area of the law it's subject to a loosely goosey balancing test with the supreme court's as we put it on the preparation involving the limited partnership out of puerto rico that i'm not trying to play gotcha if you're not that familiar with it but their their support sad we look at puerto rico civil law and we determine that a limited partnership is like a corporation is if i read russell even in light of pardon and sort of narrowing down it doesn't limit date russell and why didn't that apply given the hungary and civil wall look your honor again i urge you to look at the document called the deed of get it right and you know they use the spanish name which you probably know i do not but it's a partnership interest right and so i mean if anything membership interest is more like a corporation than a partnership say the district where look at this the district would say this is not a close question but didn't look at russell right it's look at the seventh circuit sort of compare these two analysis but it's not looking at is the civil law system and help there's that russell the court treats that is different from our  think the key point is the district work felt that they that the plaintiffs had not been candid at the outset with her at least about bringing some of these things to their their attention frankly she said you know they haven't there's abundant evidence which has gone undiscuss point that that these things are membership this is it there's some of that going both ways right and there is some blame both ways on that idea so but get you back to the sort of idea of what i think you're just saying and he did ignore russell because carton  to very unique kind of corporation where you like if i want to buy shares in apple what the snake apple my citizenship but when you look at the documents on pedophilia i think you can you cannot conclude that this is anything but very clear that that that it's a membership thing it's a belongs to the members i don't want to miss i see my i'm turning yellow or writing but i want to make sure to underscore what's kind of a fundamental anomaly of this case which is the district court in this case could have just entered a money damages judgment here virginia against orsi and the other bad if the alleged bad actors in the original lawsuit what the district where did those more than the district court purported to assign the ownership of one carrion companies in hungary listed on the budapest stock exchange the other side comes in at a fundamental level and says you did are bad people because you did something wrong and you bought these these this company i t v and they allege title on the hung jury and stock exchange which is the the budapest trade registry is what determines the ownership of companies that in the original default judgment the court was way out of line to purport to adjudicate the ownership of hungary property that if somebody comes if i want to buy my next door neighbor's house in the summer county maryland i'm entitled to go to the registry of deeds of montgomery county see do i have a clear title if somebody said fax me something that i have an italian judgment against the sell budapest trade registry the challenge for that is sixty that the two c refers to actual knowledge not don't require formal notice right i mean its actual knowledge in that sixty that d to see which is the aiding and abetting vision is there's this is the fundamental flaw in their position that somehow we have done something bad in hungary just by purchasing a hungary corporation with clear title they never made any effort to record any ownership interest to this day with the heard from the opposing counsel had to do it was an attempt to characterize this as some sort of unicorn this unique situation when in fact there are a number of cases and we've cited those in our breeds and in fact counsel for did he is involved in one of those cases before this court the expansion's case which we pointed out where a third party that's overseas is alleged to have knowingly violated an injunction issued by one of this country's courts and number of courts have ruled that third parties that otherwise are beyond the jurisdiction of a court but that knowingly violate a court order subject themselves to that most of those cayley's the published ones and certainly the court of appeals decisions either involve u s citizens which i think are readily distinguishable or they involve beyond the jurisdiction of that court but within the nationwide jurisdiction  stiction and i get that but i don't see how you make that subsequent giong at least without u s citizenship even if that's a reasonable distinction to a purely foreign entity it is purely a brawl and now maybe that needs to be reminded to decide but help me understand why we ought to expand the jurisdiction that brought well there are cases  do something in particular so if they accepted a bank transfer from a bank in the united states i get that there's some actual action or receipt of information you know being shipped from california to  florida or being shipped from virginia to hungary but what they did is all in hungary or maybe other countries in that area no actually there are the american plane it's made investments gave money here that was then invested ownership of i t v was stolen from them so that's that's the problem they contributed both work but they also contributed capital and all that was stolen so american monies negotiated here in the u s went into companies overseas that the do that touched the united states in any way help me understand what they're acquiring i t v that that contains the investments and had these american violation of the injunction the anti transfer injunction now we were proceeding with discovery and that was prematurely ended and the reason why we brought this in force from proceeding now was because we had learned that a man had reason to believe that there were other american contacts given that diddy was preparing an i p o and working with american invest and all them their affiliates and i t v it indigenous affiliates that they were the successor in interest of or see and not one of the companies but the person or see the person wearing the wear in the district court have you ever made that point this case should go back to the court because it did he was being afforded an opportunity to be heard in any evidentiary proceeding on a full record to contest whether it could be made liable on a contempt basis or a successor and so the due process issues are simply premature that's the whole point of this proceeding we're not seeking that they can still taney asli without any ability to mount a defense are liable we're simply saying we need to have a full record and then the court you your honor very quickly the there are two just to finish up on this point if you look at pages four forty five four forty six of the motion to enforce they are going through some factors for successorship they are all based on i t v there's no allegation there that that this is respect that they're saying we're a successor to orce and again that would be kind of a very strange proposition that by doing a business deal with somebody we bought we bought this company i t v for morsi we were going around hungary romania buying up small cable companies one of them was this one from bourse but you know there is no allegation here that we are  you know a single shareholder who may be in privity with the corporation that if he or she is the one really directing the litigation this is neither a pretty situation which is has to be a very close legal relationship nor a successorship  situation and if you look at their their pleadings they just kind of invoke twenty five c as if that's the be all and end all to stab a successor rule twenty five see again as a rule of civil procedure that doesn't set forth the substantive basis for success ship that has to come from state law they seem to think that they can just wave around rule twenty five see and then that's enough to stick to reach the very significant substantive conclusion not procedural substitute of successorship were fundamental  the their argument only sixty five is complete bootstrapping because what they say is that well you guys knew what you guys being did were strangers to the judgment they say but you knew that the judgement  knew that there was an injunction against force well even if that is true which again we're not conceding that doesn't subject us to the personal jurisdiction of the district court that doesn't create a minimum contact that's the only minimum contact that they allege they have to come up with establish personal jurisdiction they've never ledge anything else their whole theory is that rule sixty five alone creates that minimum contact and going i t v but what they're trying to do here is go beyond i t v and start saying there's minimum context against these other people who are the buyers of i t v that's a totally different kettle of fish i could buy an asbestos company and i may be stuck with the liabilities that come with that especially the company if i don't exclude them but that doesn't mean that suddenly i have all the same contacts with some other disinform as that that come same reason we separate you know parent companies and sit key point though again is that we bought the company as we were doing all over hunger mania and the most they can say is that when you had knowledge that the company you bought subject to some foreign judgment that put a cloud on the title but it didn't put a cloud the way you put a cloud in the title of something is by going over to the place where the title is located it's this is kind of an in rent problem here to the extent the court purported to adjudicate the ownership of property hungary and that is what makes this case so strange and they're saying i'm gary and company did something wrong by buying another one gary and company with a clear title on the budapest stock exchange whatever document they were waving at from the eastern  exercise personal jurisdiction over me just because they allege that i knew that that property was you know that there was a judgment in for ginia saying that the husband or the wife had an ownership interest in the property if they never made any attempt to record that judgment  it becomes part of the luxembourg procedure here again they never made any effort to come over to to hungary to record the judgment and so that we don't do anything bad when we look at the hung jury and registry and we see no clo we that that doesn't it's total bootstrapping to say that with that means that we are in aiding and abetting in violation of the underlying virginia judgment and then that creates the minimum contact to make the virginia port of personal jurisdiction over us in the first place and i think just a quick point the the d c circuits jurisprudence on this whole article basis because entirely consistent this course response and every other workers it says the arguable basis and this is bell helicopter which goes back to justice ginsburg's earlier opinion for that court in practical concepts even a pardon is perfectly entitled to sit back if you're abroad if you are sitting around talking to pop and somebody brings a suit against united states you're perfectly entitled to sit back not participate in that and then if somebody tries to enforce it against you defend yourself and subject matter jurisdiction grounds and not under some higher standard if you don't participate the people who do participate are so stuck with a higher standard but people who don't like non parties are not so for those reasons your hon