it where do you find any case law that would support that that type of hand let me let me let me pull back up for a sec i mean  frustrated i'm sure but that's not the question when you're a straight you can do things like that but we're going to get took away where the judge was again this citing things on the merits that would have frustrated the ordering error when you're moving in a certain litigation strategy and you acknowledge the core that if you do not answer this cover the court has certain powers to to proceed and at case we're talking about an automobile insurance policy in which the defendants are trying to seek coverage under that policy the the insurance obviously want  auto must have had or at least could have easily obtained a police report of this accident that we support stated very clearly no hernandez name address birthdate the fact that he was going to be injured at the fact that he was transported by ambulance to mount sinai hospital the fact that he was a passenger in the car driven by on the pitch his stuff that was all known to direct auto but direct otto chose not to coverage on their policy to choose whether or not to join some necessary parties or at least to try not to early start to try to join those part unfeasible or impossible to bring in those three parties maybe that judgment can stand but that's not the case here and in the se focuses trans case it was actually a party who was before the court who's complaining that some other one case where a necessary party who is not joined was not allowed to object and get his day in court as to whether or not there is coverage and councils just not being accurately says that well we didn't join known and as because we didn't we didn't know about them no hernandez filed this personal injury lawsuit within the two your station limitations to do so and five full months the judge denied a motion for summary judgment they brought a motion reconsider and somehow they got but handed it back down so it really wasn't contested even in the st case it's troubling that direct auto knew about this necessary party but didn't join the necessary party known and as in the st action and never informed the judge in efforts to action that there was an interested party an injured party unnecessary party was not join it's troubling also that even assuming that direct auto didn't know about no hernandez until after the summary judgment was entered in the st action lawsuit this declaratory judgment action against known hernandez just two weeks after judgement was entered in the st action so they're well within the thirty days to file a motion say our sorry judge we didn't know about this necessary party has not joined in this section it's troubling that instead of doing that direct auto filed a whole new action that was assigned a whole different judge and thereby never informed judge valderrama that there was a juris dictional problem with his original judg and neither an insurance company nor in a claimant should be allowed to manipulate the litigation in the courts or the judgment even apart from that you are correct that direct auto invited the default judgment scase in the transcript it wasn't simply standing back and saying we're not going to answer mr newman's the le in this in in this case on st of all i believe it was for the exception there had to be aqua to act act act with it act quickly represented in the underlying case which which i believe occurred i mean there is no dispute how so you know such as this corked bat that there is no evidence of the underlying case but that's not how else would you represent somebody except for to defend the case and try to defeat the defeat the complaint and no one is i don't think i i