b on behalf of charlie trademarks your honour's the issue here as as with the issue below i think is really very very very narrow one it's one that it's really sort of a light switch type issue the issue isn't an issue that requires discretion or is susceptible to sort of discretion and factual findings that simply are there two people two beings always or one that's it and we are here because the assertion was made that charlie trademarks was a d b a and last time we were here it was contended that the attorney declaration giving the two registered certificates of the companies was hearsay and authenticated so we went back to analyze just that question that the question isn't whether they're alter egos which is sort of the root of the opposition in the district court's analysis and so below on reman we gave the declaration of late simon late and simon lights declaration alone forget about the exhibits he attached but just the factual statements that he averred as a witness under penalty of perjury on the basis of personal knowledge his personal knowledge being he's a director of both companies that establish that there are two be that there are two beings all we are saying is we have the whole we have to halt the process you can't have a judgment against a separate being on the theory that it's a d b a when it's not a d b a and the late declaration is the beginning the middle and the end of that very very narrow analysis and the problem i think that was occasioned is that mr late stuck aeration wasn't addressed by the trial court by the district court and instead the focus was on each of these companies use similar email addresses see madrasas all of which is true i can embrace that and i accept that for purposes of his appeal this appeal that yeah they use the same email address the same way two people may use as an email address but it doesn't make them alias of each other and so that is stuff that may or may not go to alter ego and i don't think it does and it's never even been been procedurally or substantively charged in this case that charlie trademarks is an alter ego so that even itself under federal or state laws without one in the briefs wouldn't be sufficient but that analysis is the wrong analysis the analysis is simply do we have two entities or not and the late declaration i think answers that question dispositively and your client is seeking to intervene to have its name stricken from the judgment it's not an alias correct in that you're briefing you also in the alternative seek to vacate the judgment i may be with you on the first ground but i don't understand why your client as legally separate entity should be intervening to vacate a judgment assuming it no longer names your client but once my client is removed from the judgment burton without you has no interest at the point we were making is this is a very narrow issue we think the heart of this is whether or not judge covello followed the mandate and the opposing counsel has argued that judge developed didn't follow the mandate and they're asking for a hearing and things like that and what we think is that judge cavelos ruling unusual in perfunctory in its short on simon lates affidavit which miss harris clemens downbelow took apart as not being factually correct and judge didn't address the affidavit and i don't think that he should have to because there's one sentence at the end of the affidavit where mr lay not only speaking as a defaulted party speaking as a board member of a defaulted party when he's speaking on behalf of charlie acquisitions limited he says i don't even know why charlie acquisitions limited is in this case in my brief i spent a lot of time with  discovery that went back and forth between sony and miss harris clemons at the outset when sony was a party and when sony did in fact we've service of process and when sony did file an appearance and when sony did give us twenty six a and then we filed an amended complaint and then sony filed an answer document thirty one it's dated october seventeenth two thousand and twelve and in sony's answer sony very clearly says in paragraph twelve we negotiated a license with charlie acquisitions ltd then in paragraph twenty two sony says we refused to make any payments until the dispute between betty harris clemens and charlie acquisitions limited over the nickel apiece royalties from  and sony admitted that it put funds in the sample account and in paragraph twenty four of sony's answer it says sony has no stake in it so we got a judgment of interplay with judge covello judge covello gave a final judgment sony paid one hundred seventy thousand plus dollars into the clerk of the court in downbelow based on sony's answer now comes simon late years later from a defaulted party saying i don't understand any of this i don't understand why charlie is even here and judge covello has the discretion to sit here and say wait a second you're attempting is a defaulted party to speak on behalf of both charlie trademarks and charlie acquisitions and undermine the legal framework of this entire case saying well charlie acquisitions never even staked a claim to this whereas sony said no no no no we negotiated with charlie acquisitions and that is why they're here and now simon lake comes remained without a clean slate because the last time that charley it was here before the second circuit i believe it was your honor judge said this is a very scant record this is  thin and the mandate from the second circuit was very clear and said this there's not enough here justification for a suit and a judgment against charlie acquisition you know we're we're talking about at least i am concerned with why a judgment was entered against charlie trademarks which was not named in the complaint which was never served and which then was added to the judgment because of your representation that oh that's just another name for charlie acquisitions and the and the district court apparently came to the conclusion based on nothing other than that that this is just a name another name of charlie acquisitions and we then remained in for a determination whether charlie trademarks had a separate a separate entity and the district judge said no that on a separate entity because they used the same address essentially  determination whether there's any basis for a judgment against the court's mandate for this court's mandate said the district court is directed to afford an opportunity to prove those assertions about its corporate status through valid evidence intervene or use the same address well i think there are he didn't address mr lay's affidavit which means that he's not taking those into consideration i think we can infer from his silence on the matter that he's not going to listen to it he's not going to sit there and say i'm not going to accept a sworn statement from a defaulted party that's trying to also talk about a proposed interviewed or talking in this one document using for two purposes i misunderstand the record but that a that mr late is on the board of two separate companies and includes not not a certificate of incorporation but that's one way you can establish your separate corporate identity it includes additional certificates from novice additional evidence and we sent the matter back so that your adversary could show that he was representing a separate corporate entity seems to me you're getting today that any rational person person would say that the corporate veil should be pierced but that's not the issue that's before us i'm not suggesting that the corporate veil should be pierced what we're suggesting is these documents are improperly authenticated these documents and judge covello has the discretion and it's not an abus discretion to look at this affidavit say i don't trust these documents i don't trust that this this affidavit that's before me is actually presenting it miscible evidence that i can rule on and  said look he is charley trademarks is not coming back to judge covello with a clean slate he'd already ruled on it once came up here the second circuit sent it back down to him and he looked at additional evidence and said this isn't enough we asked down below there mr harris clemens said show us a distinct document showing more than certificates from eva's bank records boards of directors memberships things like that mr late a verse in his affidavit or we don't know that it's a corporation as the judgments that it that it applies to charlie trademarks ltd or whatever yes the judgment names charlie trademarks ltd the corporation we don't know that they're a corporation and against a name if you don't have a judgment against a trademark or as a trademark doesn't own anything the judgment purports to reports to make the judgment collectible against a company named charlie trademarks limited but what we're saying is we don't know that their company they haven't shown that their company and judge covello is responding to the fact that they haven't given him sufficient evidence that this is actually a company how do we know that the documents from davis are real they're not there's no  name doesn't own and a name is just a name it doesn't own anything you can't collect something from a name if you want to consent to amend the judgement so that so that it so that it is clear that the only company against which it applies is charlie acquisitions and that it doesn't apply against charlie acquisitions no matter what name it may use but that it doesn't apply against a company named charlie trademarks that would be a different matters if that's what you're saying and let's get that done i don't think that's what i'm saying and i think that we're saying that the judgment is against all of these entities because what they're trying to do is and  submitted it in this case letters from previous counsel when this dispute was established that that is a charlie promised my client decades of litigation around the globe in this is what she's getting is she's trying to connect on collect on her she wants royalties statement she wants things showing why they claim a right and then simon lake comes before judge covello and says no and not only that i have no idea why charlie acquisitions is involved yet we produced for this court and for judge covello e mail showing simon late involved in the negotiations over the rights for miss harris's song to christina aguilera so the judge covello looks at that affidavit and says i don't believe this i believe sony sony has been here sony has been a good faith litigant sony put all these documents forward sony showed us what's happening sony put enough in front of us to show a judgment of enter pleader is appropriate and now comes charlie trademarks and charlie acquisitions trying to undermine the original judgment of inner pleader from two thousand and thirteen or if there is is such a corporation exists you are not trying to collect anything from it and you are not contending at the judgment in titles you to collect anything from that corporation your only intitled to collect from charlie acquisition which may have used the name charlie trademark from time to time is that what you're saying that you know if there if there's a separate corporation named charlie trademarking are you saying then that it is not your intent in this in this law suit and you are not seeking to collect this judgment against any corporation that is named charlie trademarks your only seeking to collect against a corporation that goes by the name of charlie acquisitions that is its name which might have used other names including charlie trademark from time to time is that your is that what you're asking yes we were saying that charlie acquisition to us is charlie trademarks and because of that we get to collect against anything that has charlie your honour's this is judge covello as been watching this litigation for a long time and we believe that he's entitled to a deferential review because of his approach to the facts he's seen all of these facts and he's sitting here saying this whoever these people are coming to him have not put forward facts that he believes and he doesn't have to believe those facts and he can rule based on thank you just make really two very very brief points i don't think you can look at the district judge's order and say that the district judge made an adverse credibility finding against  as i understand it i mean i'm new to the case as post my two colleagues but as i understand it the the question that appears to have been sent back was the separateness in the corp in the in a corporate existence context as opposed to some kind of piercing the corporate veil alter ego context which is a later question one hundred percent whether the assets of charlie acquisitions held in the name of charlie trademarks are really charlie position as one percent your alter ego hasn't been plaid alleged thought that is a separate issue from the simple trademark alias question i've been i haven't been a federal judge forever i have as long as some of my colleagues on the bench are but is this unusual work it would have made life a lot easier for but well you're on a it's the first time i've seen it too and it's a fantastic vehicle if you can get a default judgment against someone and then just claim everyone in the world is an alias and then throw the burden on them when they show up to disprove something i have never seen it i've only ever seen judgments amended by the party with the judgment coming to the court and saying i have a judgment against corporation one i can prove they're an alter ego of two and i want to now make my case and that accounts this comes of the context of motion and indeed you consider the prospect of simply commits an act when the when the jar when the judgment was domesticated and in in pennsylvania where your client has domains and assets did you consider the from the district of connecticut and so if the judgment is to be voided as against this new entity charlie trademarks our concern was we have to go back to the source which is the court that issued it just go back to the court and say hey you made a mistake it's no fault on you district judge we yeah i would i would ask finally that the court remand it but i would ask also the court remand it with directions given this record there there isn't a need for further hearings and then risk of perhaps repeating mistake i would simply ask the court to order based on plead alter ego we will then litigate the issue but what i'm saying right now is the management has to be amended or say you're saying that you are asking us to strike charlie trademarks from the judge correct grounds that charlie trademarks was not named in the complaint and was not served and that there was no justification for amending the judgment to to to to make the judgment collectible against and corporation called charlie trademark that was never involved in the litigation that that the that the judgment can be collected against charlie acquisitions correct guard listen whether charlie acquisitions used the name charlie trademarked or used the name banana boat republic it's a matter what names it's use the judgment is probably collected against a corporation whose name is charlie acquisitions but not against a corporation that was never sued and never named in the complaint never served never involved until alter ego they could there be companies so we can have a fight about alter ego if they choose all i'm saying is as it stands today a judgment exists right thank you honors thank you the next case on the calendar