the real defendant in this case grandma or requested in that second a minute complaint that ridge vanderpool be fired from his position that there would be an injunction injured which required the court to terminate his within about two weeks after service i filed on behalf of mr vanderpool a motion for substitution of judge as a right that was noticed up the law provides that there really is no discretion to deny a properly file a motion unless it was made to avoid trial or delay the trial and there's no question here there was no trial set there was no delay this was still in the process as the court saw that link the complaint it's going to be a while before they got to trial yes within just a few weeks of after filing so probably within a month i don't remember the exact date of the hearing  but the dismissal without prejudice motion was filed both of them were separate the same time at the hearing on the motion i asked the trial judge to rule on the motion to recuse himself basically a motion of motion for substitution and i said to the court you know you really have no discretion to deny this motion it must be heard before the motion to dismiss the court decided to ignore the motion and grant and dismissal without prejudice and i think the last clear that any order entered after an improperly denied motion for substitution judges void at the end the proceedings amendment complaint was filed and he was me so he had no opportunity to ask for his right to a change of judge because he was never in the case intil remark decided to bring him in two years later and i think summarily dismissed well he didn't dismiss he refused to hear the motions so he said i'm going to hear the motion to dismiss instead and dismiss vehicle i understand that but ecause his counsel me was told i was out of court i was out of order for even speaking with a court that was no longer according to this case meet the issues it is all right if if i'm not a party to the case i can't speak to the court i can't deal with the court i can't file a thrill for a fight and i think the least when absurd result of their point where you say it in a pool is subject to which would result in a new judge you know i'm not sure what would happen after that point you know it clearly i think the the motion to dismiss favorable was to avoid a change of j mean his his actions were discussed but he was never a defendant until the second minute complaint was filed in the problem is there's all types of remedies requested with respect vanderpool cannot speak to the court he can't he can't do with the court but he really still is a defendant because i don't think there's any doubt that the judge had no discretion to deny the motion for substitution of judge and once he didn't do that all the subsequent orders are roy so that vendor pools really still in the case even though he's not a defendant and can't participate because his dismissal was improper i know this is a test this is a tangled procedural matter but it's tangled because the problem court judge didn't follow the law about what he had to do with oh well he cannot participate in the case at this point if he's out as far as the troll course concerned even though they're still remedies requested against him i appearance now you've done whatever and even to intervene that would have to be of the discretion of the court the court can say it's too late you know it's too late in the ballgame to get into this has he intervene case was not headed the trial at the trial court of and i think that's the affording that i really relying on to say that under these circumstances the courts have allowed an appeal with respect to the change of judge issue because if you read ostreicher really closely what happened was there was a motion to dismiss the court dismissed it it gave twenty one days to replete now that the plaintiff is accused me of blatantly misrepresenting the holding of r c ecker saying that oh in the appellant's brief in that case there was a motion to dismiss with prejudice which was granted but i think we've got to go with whether he be a poet court opinion actually in it says there was a dismissal there was twenty one days to replete in a case and then the appeal was taken with respect to the change judge and author so i guess that's that's what i'm resolved at the problem complaint consists of multiple c requiring the board members to terminate available so if the second event complaint is still in full force there's nothing that has been dismissed out of that except theoretically his right to a motion for change judge secondly if you intervenes you know does well i mean that's the big thing does he waive that now he's back into the case with a judge that he is trying to remove who has told his counsel you have no voice in this matter sit down you're out of order so it would be a very hope the option for vanderpool i don't think to intervene in the case without with the same judge you know and i and i think there's no guaranteed because the judge may say it's too far along i think if you look at the intervenor statute it's not a it's not a sure thing the judge could say it's too late at this point i'm not going to allow him to be intervene our well that's that's what the complaint asks for a mandatory injunction that he be terminated so it doesn't seem to mean that the trial judge has the authority to say he is a necessity he he was in the nest very necessary probably for two years they just named him and then said we want this guy fired because of his actions and we want these different sanctions against  seen if if you would of so if you would have denied it but he didn't he didn't hear it right he just says i'm not even going to consider it i'm going to consider the subsequently filed a motion dismissed without begin but the other thing is judicial economy when you think about it if you look at that complaint you can tell that this is monster case so you're ruling this is the flip side is that the board of directors probably and that issue is this policy of this appeal or the trial court's ruling on the substitution ssion motion should be affirms even if this court did have to as stiction the appeal on the underlying substitution motion represent for the sole purpose of taking the action away from a judge that has been presiding over it for more than three years this this result would be absurd you heard mr rock talk about issues that is an absurdity the truth is your honour's that the  statute in the voluntary dismissal that you start talking about issues of adequate representation and having a voice and on that point your honor i would suggest first of all that you don't have a continuing interest in this action if it is more than adequately represented by counsel for sunrise and the individual directors that are used to this suit and finally is justice ever noted yes he has a ribbon there is a river the under the rules of civil procedure that allows him to intervene if he should choose to do so he is assuming at this point it imo seems that that really is going to be fruitless and that is a few ptolemy for him he has not brought that to the attention of this court if he feels he has some skin in the game you honor he has the ability to make an intervention motion there is no ignoring prejudice on the part of our current god he's not saying the judge is just going to nod and says maybe the judge will determine that i'm coming to the action too late the reality is final judgment was entered following the twenty one days that were given to replayed to take a little further on this issue of jurisdiction there is no value in judgment and motion assessed to judge is not a final word had asserted in his brief and yet the cases that he cites for the propositions of establishing jurisdiction similarly do not apply the game before a case that he cites actually supports the notion that the final judgment is necessary test on the issue of standing the simple reality is that we need to listen back and it is that at the time that the court considered or decided not to consider his charge has the inherent authority to manage its docket as it sees best to promote traditional economy there's nothing in statute or case law that mr mayer will has pointed to that would suggest that again it's an interesting procedural posture where you have the actual dismissed calling appealing i can't imagine a circumstance where that would occur which gets to me where's the beef you have that right what you're brought in no matter what the rulings or prior to your intreat of the case that if you could if you could repeat it what the judge wants to do or how the judge is leaning that doesn't matter i think if you look at the west paragraph of this substitution station because it just says the fact is you you understand the prior rulings doesn't make any difference  i think that's really all i think we've covered everything else