is that they have to be central to the plaintiff's claims which means they have to be material necessary to establish the essential element of one of the plaintiffs causes in their action the district  are considered matters by judicial notice as being true from the constraints of the material needing to aid you refer to planes and number two being  know in addition because this report although mentioned in the complaints was not central to the points of his claims and so it held that going outside ghana's talking about those are the kinds of things well which it is proper to take additional notice in this report on the bonfire was not one album for whatever reasons of credibility or something else so what is  argument that the district court indeed is limited to things that are somehow implicit in the complaint or do you accept that there's a broader right of which additional judge has to take t but if you ask the court to big judicial notice then those restrictions don't apply so you've now set up an odd dichotomy that doesn't seem to have any principle behind it is now taken to those who notice for example on a motor on a summary judgment authorities that say an affirmative defense has to be apparent from the face of the complaint for the district court to go well outside the complainant you know the essence of the pleadings are families are not referenced in the complaint they're when you when you say that he took judicial notice i mean i used i used to make my living drafting ten k so it probably doesn't speak well for me but what i want to know is he takes judicial notice of it i mean what i'm missing the significance of it what i want to take notice of from that in the ten k and  figured and it said and said two things he hopes on two things one he said there's a statement here that there's a history of these two ended in transferring loans back d and forth and there was a statement that thousand dollars in two thousand the other point there was insane what it was there was a statement that dynamics commercial had no assets at that point and so there was a ten k for your ended buying on the open market and then in march part securitizing them by putting the pools and then and then selling the bonds that were backed by that pool mortgages so d it was it was common expected that loans would be getting was one of them it was one of the big one of the big firms ok one of the big big firms i don't remember was the wall i have to look at them like incidental ok now so let me take you to where it is where you want to go which is t aired was it didn't focus on the fact that this is the one year term doesn't start running until the claimant has reason to know of the fraudulent nature of the transaction and as an  fact there is that they received a judgment in their favor against the c i that they received to take nothing judgment against dining capital and then elected not to appeal that as you've heard this morning the district court found that the nd lawsuit whole dynamics capital responsible for breach of one hundred sixty million dollars law dollars loan commitment is barred under both the statute of limitations and principles of rest with ata as you've heard the other side has three arguments and i thought i would just walk through each of them starting with the judicial notice argument your honor is that it's important to emphasize that they do not dispute that these materials the f c c public filings four and the public state court record case that mr and that as used today so so your honor that that case also called scanlon it's important to recognize that it does not state expressly whether you can take judicial notice it doesn't address that issue what it does do is it states generally that there is one exception to the rule that you can look outside the pleadings but judge king your decisions in the jungles retail services case the plaintiff side in the reply shows the problem with their argument and why you can reconcile those those cases because general retail services recognizes that taking judicial notice is not consider looking outside the pleading it's actually considered part of looking at the pleadings there's no reason why you can't do that just south your question shows another ways of distinguished that gallon and m case which is they're the only reason the court gets to considering whether the document was attached to the complaint and central to the claim is it because it already concludes that it's judicial notice is as broad of the trial the six pages it might be later is a little concerning though i don't know where to draw the line i'm saying there's no difference so long this is appropriate produce you'll notice summary judgment be merits which is why when judge king asked her question earlier we got into the merits of whether what the materials were used for both the residue to cotton argument alter ego argument but beyond that your honor there is no distinction this court has said this is in the m decision a decision judge king and judge stuart you're both involved with also the judge called the whole decision the plaintiff also rely on it says that as long as you take a look at what's been planted on the face of the complaint and in light of judicially noticeable materials if are in the lurd there's no sort of conclusive reason to go forward you apply the normal twelve if expanded and you dismissed so for example your honor if there was a complaint on its face that that there's never been formal litigation and someone came forward with judicially notice material to show that there has been for a little earlier litigation you would dismiss regardless of what it said on the face of the complaint because that's what you're supposed to do with the twelve the six page thank you thank you your honor so because i think the judicial notice issue is really not difficult to resolve when you look at controlling supreme court press and in this court's cases let me turn then to that the two issues in the case one is the texas business code provides that it must be filed within one year after the transfer was a recently put have been discovered there's no dispute here that these transfers took place in two million two thousand and one and that the complaint was filed more than fifteen years later in april two thousand and seventeen it's also clear that plaintiffs acknowledged the fact that they were on notice that the transfer had occurred so the only question in the words of this court is whether they had a reason and offer to nitty to do a further investigation to determine the whether they had a factual basis for alleging transfers were fraudulent and again what the court district court properly did is walk through what was available to them the two thousand and two march two thousand  c c report that set the record three thousand nine hundred and forty made clear that d c i had no assets no assets at all and it also made clear that although plaintiffs are alleging here that these loans were worth millions and millions and millions of dollars that they had only relief that's in the rd amended titian in the state court based on the idea that the c i had a dire financial situation they told the jury in their opening statement that every loan to d c i ended up in dynamics capital hands and they printed out every u c c filing and which shows the transfers from d c i to die next occurring so it would not of taken much they hadn't dozens of depositions that were at trial all they needed to do was ask the next question to the vice president d c i which is what were the values of those transfers that would not have been difficult to do the whole point of the texas trick statute of repose is to weed out these types of stale claims now your own as you heard this morning that plaintiff's basically ra for arguments as to why they think they should be bound one in their briefs they talk about all the things that they didn't know but that's a distraction the key thing is what did they know and they knew from the s e c replying and from the deposition testimony that there are lying on now in order to raise an inference that there was a fraudulent transfer those are the same pieces of information that they had back in twenty million twenty two thousand and three during the st case they emphasize in the briefing that they say there's no right to discovery but of course that's only true if discovery is not relevant to the claims here it would have been relevant because they made this argument that dynamics capital sort of been responsible for d c i and then lastly your honour's they say this case is a lot like the g behaves but the jammy case and judge southwick i think you'll recall that that was a very complicated case with a world wide ponzi scheme that where essentially the question was whether the receiver had the resources to look into these issues earlier in the court said no it didn't because there were six libraries of congress worth of documents months and months of forensic accounting was required one hundred and twenty five professionals and thousands of hours here in complete contrast all they needed to do was ask the question to any of the many witnesses that they deposed what was the value of the transfers they knew that there were transfers they knew there were no assets left with the cia it would have been easy for them to make fact after parrish let me ask you about the rd point nd point whe a prohibition or is it not relevant for the reason so your honor it's a prohibition of getting discovery free judgment into assets just for the purposes of horsemen but what courts of setting you can see the st paul case in the northern district of texas that they rely on makes this point which is that that doesn't mean you can't ask questions if it's relevant to the claims that are properly before the court at the time so our point is your honour's it's true that courts have thought parties from doing so say is that in this case they argue that dynamics capital was responsible for the loan commitment and that it along with d c i had fraudulent dues the plaintiffs into doing this they had argued that this was of it to the jury that there was multi go because all of the assets were being transferred to designing capital and they actually asked the vice president as d c i these precise questions without being prevented from doing so and the vice president answered yes we've made all the transfers yes there are no operations so there's no reason why they couldn't of asked the next logical question which is what is the value of those transfers for b or was there compensation consideration provided there's nothing that would have prevented from from doing that under the general rule that you don't whether the same nucleus of operatives that you take a look at the bar decision that is whether it arises from the same subject matter of the earlier lawsuit that test is satisfied here because they prescribe the whole i next capital jointly and several to look at their own reply brief on page twenty eight what they do their ignore their highlighting but just take a look at the two paragraphs they take paragraph eighty which is their state's st amended titian and they compare it to paragraph seventy three in the federal complaint if you look at what those two things are saying the paragraph eighty of the state commission says dynamics capital and d c i induced plaintiffs by misrepresenting facts about the financial stability and their ability to provide one hundred and sixty million dollar allegations that they choose to cite so that force is also in addition to this as we've talked about this is on the record page forty nine or ninety six they try to argue the alter ego issues to the jury that theory they they argued specifically and i'll just read it to me here try as they may the evidence will show that there was no difference between these two companies the evidence will so that these companies share the same office space the same employees and then they go on the same page there to say that the evidence will show that every loan made t disputes raised the same issues as they come out of the same offer to that now your honour's again plaintiffs have three arguments and there they try to raise a none of them have merit they st argue that there can be no risk to kata because  and fifty eight that we fight for that point it's also not true where is here they are aware of the facts that are the basis for the role so you play remember here the argument is that at the time the of the loan was made must have been available to them in existence when the st it was filed this is a little bit of mr x and because they're not focusing on the alter ego claim here they're trying now trying to focus in on the back to the fraudulent transfer issues of course it was in existence by their fraudulent transfer claim is barred by rescue scott it's already barred by the statute of limitations what we're saying is that even if the transfer of assets could be used to support an alter ego play that claim was already available to be litigated in the st lawsuit also in any event the cases that they cite don't support their legal proposition if you take a look at the hernandez case for example which says that the facts must be in existence at the time of the lawsuit the very next sentence says a claim is barred only if it approved after the original judgment of course that's consistent with the bar case which is texas's the case on rescue the kata which makes the point that alternate theories are barred by rescue because you have to have separate cause of action altogether and for that reason bar talks about how parties should be permitted to amend their pleadings through the course of discovery and the discourse discovery can inform them on what serious to press before the jury that all of those theories are  last year on it they make this argument that less than their brief but they say that merely because there are attorneys made the arguments to the jury at trial that there was no alter egos there is there was a relationship between the parties but that doesn't count as evidence your honour's let me just to close by saying that the texas is strict fast food of repose and its principles are rescued potter are designed to weed out exactly these types of stale claims and to prevent multiple bites at the same apple this litigation was litigated boy than twenty years ago in state court extensively with sophisticated parties represented by experienced counsel they had their chance to appeal but they chose not to appeal the judgment of against my next capital they are now trying to backdoor that with another litigation the district court got this precisely right and we'd be grateful and urge the court to affirm the district court unless there's any more questions of all along there right you know the questions for the matters not only doctrines of corporate into the complaint are referenced and matters of which a court may take additional notice well that's correct and it doesn't address that it doesn't address one way or the other whether those matters have to have to meet in two par