that there was no reasonable person that would look at the evidence and find that there was a breach of fiduciary duty we disagree we disagree because there are no less than twenty two dollars different violations of their own manual of procedure that's the steps that they should have taken to be compliant with the code of federal regulations in processing the legal process order that came through which we're not sure if really where it came from but if it had the effect of removing two hundred and twenty zero or a little less than two hundred thousand dollars of the appellant's retirement fund once you get into the specifics so for example they are supposed to you have to reviewing people when the request or the money amount is over one hundred thousand dollars there there is no evidence in the record to show that there was to two sets of eyes that looked at it the order that's supposed to come through disposed to be signed by a judge or an agency of competent jurisdiction that did not happen  they were supposed to hold the money for certain amount of time and then do away on the nd one does the israeli order not count was an assigned by a judge really order was not part of what the documentation that the thrift savings plan got out that's an adverse us a subsequent violation actually as well is that they did not have the complete set of documents for for them to make a decision so not only did they not have the israeli judge signature because they didn't have the order when they got the documents from the contra costa county well they didn't actually get it from an agency state agency actually well counsel yes that true that they didn't get anything from a state agency thank you for asking that question your honor it is true that they didn't get anything from staging c because the documentation that came to that to to the thrift savings plan was from the state disbursement unit the state disbursement unit is not a state agency isn't that a part though the child services state agency it is actually not your honor if you look at the website for the d c s s you look at the state disbursement unit website and we've included that in in our in our briefing that there is there they go as the state dispersement unit is not a it's not even considered state agency at all actually the state of california is not listed as an agency on their website wait a minute if you look at the document itself the one dated until with the exact date is that it says child support collections order to withhold up at the top it says state dispersed disbursements agent unit like you said you know boxes with sacramento california and it lists some numbers as your client's name has the amount if you look at the at the footers it says down the bottom stated california health and human services agency department of child support services and you're telling us that's not a question and in your honor of or doesn't that demonstrate maybe i was not being clear enough your thank you for asking that i would say no it does not demonstrate that the state disbursement unit is a sub agency of the state of california does not even consider it an agency at all or a sub unit of it it's not it's in a conduit it's not anything that is considered can act on its own behalf of the state of california will list it as the instrumentality of collection without adopting the that's part of its system is essentially its yes because informational i would agree with your on a fair point thank you but that begs the question why nobody took a look why nobody took a nd cos i mean that's what a fiduciary is supposed to do it's not supposed to just rubber stamp the prop the documents that are coming through your honor the you know in the footer there is that as is owner pointed out there's in the footer there said something about the d c s s but in the top it's a state disbursement unit and in fact in that document that his honor pointed fically says we work with the state agencies or for child services it does not mention anything about state disbursement unit or money conduits or anything like that so if that's the guideline that manual procedures is the is what is created for the employees of the t s p to follow the code of federal regulations so they are compliant with that code and so when they violate those twenty two dollars different at no less than twenty different ways they violated that manual procedures they are violating the code a federal regulations which it's inherent that if you do violate the code of federal regulation multiple pages your honor if you look at the top they show it was a fax and it shows there was about fifteen pages i think and those it was all came together and not one of those documents that that the t s p can consider says the department of child found social services at the top where this one says i'm reading calif for services at the send it to a rd party address and a rd party state dispersed meaning that a rd party dress not the agency where in the manual procedures mental procedures the the guidebook to keep complying with the could a federal regulations says it we deal with the state agencies state department of the state the various states child family services agencies and that's where the money is sent but this document is telling the t s p to send it to a rd party that is not a state agency and nobody knows where this money is going the fact remains that there are violations by not following the procedures in the manual and not even once looking up and saying wait a minute let's check on this and in fact it does say in  already you've got three minutes and twenty one seconds and i would like to say that i for now write well here from the government morning your honor may place the court michele low on behalf of the federal retirement thrift investment board and its executive director there are three requirements that the child support order at issue here had to satisfy in costa superior court that granted a motion to enforce israeli the underlying israeli child support order so that that was a basis that came bottom right footer the state of california health and human services agency apartment of child support services so there is no dispute that this order came from and was issued by d only that before the district court we supplied a declaration from a d c s us attorney explaining that this was an order that came from d c s us and the plaintiff's own complaint at paragraph twenty two alleges that once the board determined that the child support order was regular and on its face that is the end of its inquiry and it had to comply with the child support order and it did so and the social security act at section sixty nine dollars f says once the united states complies with legal process that it's regular on its face no liability and attach meets their regulations and once they do that they send the money that's correct yeah right and what california does with the money is a whole other thing that's right and and it's also not for the board to enquire into that process or even the underlying court proceedings that led to yes understood obvious reasons i'm going to make another point that and i would the other point i would that the district court considered because that was all the argument that was presented by mr lewis souly so i'm not i'm not sure what these additional if if it's fifteen on top of the seven forfeited these arguments by not raising them this briefly get to the like to turn to the denial of oral argument by the district court judge this court has opportunity and a memorandum in opposition and evidence that he wished to submit not withstanding the fact that his submissions violated the we can hear you counsel i'm sorry not withstanding the fact that appellant submissions before the district court did not comply with local rules that this record still considered them and therefore he was not deprived of the e and i think that's what the night circuit has said you know he has the opportunity to then raise any issues that he wishes on appeal and he has the opportunity to be heard at that point zero but i think they your honor so few points i'd like to make real quick as you mentioned did over review this is their motion for summary judgment the evidence needs looked at in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party us and when you look at the evidence light most favorable to non oving party i think when you add that to the twenty or even seven violations of the manual procedure which falls could have a real regulations i think there's no other choice but to find that there is a an issue of fact that needs to go to the trier fact in regards to the the documents that came over to the t s p there is no in disha of being from a state agency like i said the state disbursement unit and the cover letter your honour's that my colleague referred to in their code in their manual procedures it says they cannot rely on information on the cover letter so anything that is it on the cover letter cannot be relied upon that's the only page that said at the top this is from the s the california d c s s so they cannot rely on that every other page said state disbursement unit which is a not a state agency the court order needed to be included in these documents that came over the it wasn't and they do have an obligation to look into the court orders to make sure that it is fair and when and that's why it's there is the requirement that it included with the documentation and i would disagree that the board is not there to send the money to that's their job is not to send money to the states their job is to be the produce sherry for the federal employees for all of you clued in the talent that's their job not to make sure that the money goes to the state of california their job is to look after the federal employees retirement fund and be a fiduciary for them well it's their job to send the money if they are directed to by an appropriate and ministry of agency it's part of their job as well part of their job as long as if the information that comes over follows all the procedures and has all the checks and balances that their manual for the code of federal regulations requires and this did not that's the problem this did not have all the things that is required according to the manual procedures that they need to follow and nobody looked up not once a fiduciary did not look up and that's a problem once again your honour's this is a motion for summary judgment brought by the defendants the evidence needs to be looked at the light most favorable to us and when you see that nobody looking up that the information was not contained on the documents then it cannot be said as a matter of law that no reasonable person could find that there wasn't a breach a pretty scary duty and in regard to the evidence that came there was presented there's not one shred of evidence was admissible there was no watch them being created there's no foundation no authentication are not one piece of militants thank you your honor thank you we will submit this case at this time thank you very much and that intercession for today and for the week