pursuing litigation against the now company and mobile tech l l c in china and this is a unique case over fifty years of case law in this court and in the lower courts and the circuit establishes that in order to obtain an antecedent junction against foreign litigation the party requesting that injunction must prove that the foreign litigation his crew to it as fully duplicate and in particular that means that the party requesting the would permit the litigation in some other forum at some other time but there was a cover claim and having chosen to initiate your own litigation that's what a counter claim is just as a matter of domestic law precludes  to join all things arising out of the same transaction at all i understand that that was the district court's point now i would appreciate it if you would engage that rather than argue what would happen had there been no counterclaim at all and yet thank you your honor and so i think that the cases cited and in our brief united states versus part of addresses this united states versus part of was a case from the northern district of indiana you realize that cases from district courts have all her lee's euro clique preclusion force not to say that there's any problem in the reasoning but they just have no precludes who force in the court of compulsory very specific varieties of kaplan's and that is no book that i'm trying to get you to stop thinking about whether the counterclaim was compulsory or permissive the question i'm asking is your client chose to initiate its own litigation that's what a counter claims and having chosen to do that the law the merger involved are requires all claims arising out of the same transaction to be jo just for the get to the extent it has any persuasive but as that court said i forget about what that court said tell me why the doctrine of murder in bar doesn't apply right so the second second point chinese litigation that there's no relation to any of the counter claims resolved in the u s litigation can you do that yes of course so in the u s litigation i know that in the complaint the counter way by forcing the company into bankruptcy now i'll admit that certain of the factual claims asserted over in china i could relate to those claims but also in china there are some additional claims first there is a claim based on the as the chang chun think tank contract if you remember the district court here when entering summary judgment on chance encounter times said that chen could not change his claim here in the u s to argue that rather than the right off being the problem with the chunks on the ten contract the problem was that that now go had in the first instance failed to meet the specifications of that contract and so that different different claim is exactly what mr over in china with regard to the change and then counter i have to say i still have the same question the judge easterbrook has because the similarity of the claims in the chinese litigation appear to be you know the chinese lawyer shouldn of his counter claims they may not be identical call in the sense that china has a different legal system and different plans but they all certainly arise out of the very same dispute based on the same facts that chen lost and the u s litigation and when you look at it too you know it's and and depending viewer he's clearly drawn it would seem that he's truly clearly trying to circumvent the judgment against him get a second bite in a more friendly for your your honor i think it's fair to say that he's taking what he learned in the district court litigation and and use that to create perhaps a better complaint in china i believe we just heard that in the last case where the united states sues twice right once civil and once criminal and one wonders why the civil judgment isn't binding so the same co reason that you lost in this case ok i accept that your honor but i think the point here is that the case law really requires that in order to to do this act which inherently offends international comedy i can and requires that's a completely different argument you know i'm when i picked up your brief i was expecting to see the argument that even if we litigation in china would be invalid under u litigation it's perfectly valid under chinese rules which we should respect but i didn't see that argument in your brief have i missed anything that argument was phrased below is that this i didn't i didn't ask what argument was raised in the district court i asked i said i didn't see that argument in your brief have i missed anything no you haven't you're ok i would say though that that based on the fact states and i think that a higher standard should apply and i think that's what the cases pay and the fifty years of case law in the circuit and elsewhere established and that is that even if the claims are similar i d simply because that the claims or the parties are similar that they need to be identical thing and the discovery dispute is there any realistic reason to believe that there are different legal entities yes yes your honor and here you know this is this is just said without the the c in the district court there hasn't been an appearance filed on behalf of that company here they seem to believe and they have represented that for some reason despite this name change there is there are some important legal n needs the opportunity to investigate that to determine what exactly that different legal situation  so so again it's broader than just a discovery dispute that this is it it is just another example and in my file the counter claim below against mr chen and i my then proceeded to litigate that counter party and so really what we're saying here is that that now co the nalco entities can't use that as both a sword and shield i do they can't hide behind the fact that there was a name change in the district court as as a reason not to produce documents from i and then now that mobile tech yellow sea has been sued in china claim that they're actually the part of the same party in interest and have the same interests that mobile  corporate name change document from sumber of twenty one fourteen and in relying on this document the court could have taken judicial notice and that is why i would believe if there was an error it was harmless and the reason for that is that document is not subject to reasonable dispute it says what it says and represents that but for a name change now como botak is mobile tech l c and a little context behind that will clarify why the name change occurred and this is from the record that now but retained to continue the litigation relating to the joint venture and that was also explained to the court and to mr chen in the same motion for leave and the most and then an amended answer so shortly after that there is a reply in our reply brief in the district court there's a foot of this says that that was a mistake that was an error the different company that's referred to in that letter is power industrial and that is explained if you look at docket one fourteen at page seventeen and this is the now two entities response to mr chen's rule fifty six point one statement now that discovery dispute deals with documents relating to the joint venture being put into bankruptcy and i am that line of questioning are those statement of facts and mr chen's rule fifty six point one statement now quantity says that they don't if i powered industrial as the company who is the custodian of those servers and that mr chen should have issue document requests or subpoena power industrial to obtain that information that it does not have that information on the server so the always been consistent it was never that there were two separate entities in that mr chen needed to serve discovery and mobile tech it was they need to discuss the service cover and power industrial  and i think the important thing to remember on this issue as a relates to judicial stoppel is the legal test that requires a judgment tied to an inconsistency so even if we credit mr chance position that  inconsistent in this discovery dispute there is still no judgement tied to that a legit inconsistency which would make judicial  thank you mr raymond thank you i think further mr  i'd i'd like to just respond to the point that mr raymond made about harmless error here and i think it's clear that the error in using the the stricken declaration as the only basis for finding that the parties were  isn't harmless and that's because the harm here was first that mr chen was deprived the opportunity to investigate further and as counsel just said that they apparently now admit that there are mistakes and representations up and made to the district  all mr chen is asking for it is that he gets the opportunity to take discovery on the issue because there seems to be some some sort of inconsistency between what's going on in discovery here and what is occurring in this in this late declaration that they submitted to the district court and so the harm here is is the loss of the investigation here mr raymond mention the sale and the power of attorney and i wouldn't say what he didn't mention is that that sale in the power