claims and her understanding that she said she had was that she understood that only to me like a lawsuit or an intercity charge or something but she had not found anything like that and then the charge later on she found a charge the charge but she had not thought of charge at that time and there's no issue of trying to settle any particular claim anything before found a charge there's no evidence of anything like that what i was mentioning was after she found her schedule of assets she goes to a hearing where the bankruptcy court judge is asking what assets you haven't and asked the question do you have any potential lawsuits and she says no she did not follow last time or around the same time had petitioned the court of the bankruptcy court to allow us to represent the trustee now at the time our response was filed from the motion for additional stop of the court had ruled appeal of arguing inherent interest in her lying to try to hide these assets she was not trying to do that she also had a worker's comp provision that she did not list in her schedule of assets as well and  when that case was settled this was prior to the judicial stop or acumen and this current law suit the plaintiff went before the bankruptcy court got the approval paid the money into the  she did in the mended summary of you know a list of twenty fifteen and she failed to mention the lawsuit that's correct on august twenty fourth two thousand and fifteen her worker's comp turning work with their bankruptcy attorney to him in the schedule of assets and there because they were they had already had a lawsuit as well going on they are prior to that time and had to settle the case and has specially put in raffa david she didn't understand she had the supplemental mean from the workers they win and got it approved and put the money into to the creditor just as what we would have done in this case summer schedule august twenty fifty at a time when she had a lawsuit pending right and she failed to list the losses right all right and the reason she didn't list the reason she didn't list at that point is she had a lawsuit but  she didn't know she had to do to supplement including who she was supplementing something with was supplementing the settlement and she understood that that that that's what her worker's comp lawyers told her she had to do part so that's the only thing she twenty in aug twenty fifth yes and which would have been the same situation in our in our case had that we frankly had we known about earlier we would have been the schedule around the same time we sought approval from the co t but where we're looking at for inadvertant was the plaintiff if she was trying to deceive the court she would not have sought approval on the workers com s she could have taken that money not disclose that and and deceive the court and that would have been clear evidence and in fact the opposite happened when she settled her case she goes the bankruptcy court and pays the money into the into the creditors which is exactly what she was going to do here once he learned about it and learned about the bankruptcy and learned that we needed to do that and we saw approval from the credit from the trustee to do that with the trustee even if the court order term and that's not enough evidence to show in adverse we argued to the district court the court did not rule on this issue and just merely granted it without analysis that the trustee should be allowed aware of any requirement of that i file these all the time in the district court we seek approval this i have i've probably done twenty of these and never have had to file what i guess an intra pleader  whether you were judicially a stopped in this particular case i mean it's not like you went to see the trustee and ask him before the case was found that's it was not done before the case was filed and but it was done while the litigation was no knowing and the appellee responded and said no the trustee should not be allowed to do this we asked for if the if the appellant can't do this allow the you said i want to do not rule on this motion of judicial or stop all i want you just forget it that's ever been found out and rule over here and say that i can't go for the trustee the bankruptcy case is not even if it is closed from on the stand of the trustees to give us permission to pursue it already it's if you take the case it's got to be reopened in the bankruptcy court that's correct so you've got to go ask the bankruptcy court happened what is the district court supposed to do he's got a motion before him to dismiss the case on the basis of judicial stop all right that's that's the question that he's got before him so you coming in and you say don't make a determination as to whether the simpson can pursue or not and if you say she cannot then allow that the tries to pursue the case just as the bankruptcy court here prove and before even the bankruptcy court has approved it under being ok with judge graves and i don't need to go back and look on that i know when we went to the court and sought permission it would have you know the court would have been aware of course to pursue in that case but i'm not sure if the bankruptcy claim in the right to that claim would have reverted back to the debtor once the bankruptcy was dismissed wouldn't not minor standing in fact i was concerned about that and the bankruptcy trustee has told of the defendants case to answer judge graves question yes it was the discrimination claims were listed on a schedule but three weeks after we filed our motion for judicial stop so after we filed a motion court has defined what is inadvertence is essentially two definitions one is where they don't know the individual does not know the facts to support the claim that clear is clearly does not exist here the second is and you know the alice in this case before this court is it is for an abuse of discretion and whether or not the district court abused its discretion in following the prior cases and to find that the concealment is self initially filled out the form she understood it to mean that it was just pending lawsuits but if that was her understanding then when she revised the form in august of two thousand and fifteen eight months after this case had been filed then clearly this should have been listed under her own logic she was aware that this case needed to be included now the fact that her or her worker's comp attorneys work for the trustee so that they could get paid out of the settlement doesn't excuse her not listing  this case the title or the heading that she filled out was other contingent and liquidity claims of every nature that was that was what she was asked about of every unlimited claims of every nature yet she somehow says that it never crossed her mind that her discrimination claim that's been pending for eight months would fall into that category i just don't think that and the district  discretion and there's nothing to indicate that that decision by the district court was clearly erroneous in a factual perspective there's no alleged error of law here so there's nothing that's been set forth that would constitute an abuse of discretion home claim on appeal is that they assert that the district court made an improper finding of fact for a summary judgment motion but that fails to understand or to consider that judicial stop it was it is an equable doctrine that is within the vicious court's discretion to apply or not apply so and then there is no thing here to indicate inadvertence or there's no reason to reverse as to the application of judicial judicial stop now the other issue that there was raised relates to the trustee and counsels made some statements but i haven't seen any kind of case law to support those statements in there was in response to our motion he made a passing reference to you know a situation where a trustee has been allowed to substitute in and pursue the claims on behalf of the debt and it doesn't really failure to do anything in this case there was as according to pursue plans counsel december sixteenth the bankruptcy court approved hiring him behalf of the at the trustee hiring him on behalf of how it's part of this case you know you're representing one clock and now you go out and solicit another clock who is going to recover against the clock at your represent and i mean how high do you think that that tell me i mean it just seems to me that it involves ethical questions and and if you could explain t would appreciate your i do do the salt if it's unethical issue i sure would like to know about it because not just me every other lawyer i know does it it's it's well you maybe you ought to keep different company bills he has an interest in doing then the client it's a wash but she has an interest i'm doing here we want to hear it you're collecting money from a third party that's going to go to it's going to go to somebody it will either go to the to the debtor or to the estate and then to the creditors right that's correct and i want to hear and that's that there's no conflict there there's no conflict because it's all just bankruptcy law in the plaintiff this pond if she gets money that's fine if it pays creditors found her as well because here this this case was her bankruptcy was discharged because she couldn't pay the bills of course if she were able to work out a settlement and pay those creditors down her bankruptcy likely would not have been discharged would you ever have permission from your clock to  represent to represent the bankruptcy trust us or we we had permission from the client we do it in there and she was and she was interested and pay an debts that had been so there's there's no interest and things being discharged she in fact had an interest in listing this lawsuit and that's i guess it goes jennifer's she had an interesting list in this lawsuit she to hopefully get the trustee not to dismiss her bankruptcy because she would have preferred to begin bankruptcy protection where she would rather to where she is right now words discharge where her creditors can go out and go after with no bankruptcy protection so rule it out which sounds like a writ of mandamus we had something pinning that the judge just refused to rule on and it sounds like the appropriate remedy is a dish writ of mandamus but what you're saying is he didn't make a ruling one way or the other and he dismissed the entire case right i mean had had he dismissed the case based on judicial stoppel with regard to the litigants who will be forward which included the bankruptcy trustees climbs the bank we're told that the judge before