families a lot of parties my clients were not involved in their original fight they were found liable of having intentionally interfere with a contract that they had no knowledge of that did not exist at the time that action took place and that they were sued for significant significantly after the statute of limitations ran my clients were not part of the original group of defendants their only caller will claim is that they are related by blood to one of the actors well your your client submitted declaration in district court saying that the three hundred thousand dollars payment to hudson was for quote proper reimbursement for labor but what was that labor it was a labor that was provided including by the mother what kind of labor what was the labor i believe it was a clerical labor  a district court and this was a big issue did judge ask your clients counsel about this issue in fact then the opposing counsel said there were no documents showing that any labor was provided i assume in preparing for this you look at th standing here today you don't know what there are any documents but suppose a labor that was provided i limited myself purely to the record knowing that the court will limit itself purely to the record i did not go back and investigate and ask specifically what was the actual labor what was provided what a satisfied myself was for the purpose of motion for summary judgment in order to reach the conclusion the court did would have had to evidence our client said that the issue and i think there's more than were not asked for details were saying who did what i mean very basic things and we have no idea well let me go to another some other transactions hudson paid fifty three thousand dollars in two thousand and twelve another fifty three thousand dollars in twenty one million three hundred and sixteen thousand dollars in two thousand and fourteen but mr yasha far testified that he didn't do anything for hudson what were those payments for do anything for hudson well by sutton paying him all this money hudson had an obligation of some sorts of those books to pay mr yasha this or he testified his deposition he didn't do anything for had to know i was mysteriously getting one hundred and twenty thousand dollars my clients were never asked the question of what did mr ghosh for provide for you they they said we paid labor charges my clients are a disadvantage they're not part of the big case they're not aware of the testimony by of somebody else they don't didn't have that they were part of the deposition they weren't part of the testimony they didn't have an opportunity to say look you forgot about this document created or something like that they didn't have that opportunity the only thing they had an opportunity to do is to say at the time receive three hundred thousand dollars which is it's not the payment of mr goshorn forward to anybody else it's that the action they're found charged with is actually they took no action absolutely they simply received three hundred thousand dollars prior to there being any restriction on them receiving three one hundred thousand dollars without being parties to a subsequent action without  this action is limited to a single action wiring of three hundred thousand dollars that my clients did not wire they simply money it was wired into their account what happened with the money is outside the scope of that motion for summary judgment because they went out it's not about whether what they did with the money it's the action of sending in the well action of the three hundred thousand dollars that everybody was aware of seven days later there's a letter from counsel that says you did this improperly the lawsuit is filed for the half years later so this this letter to the district court never addressed this i don't know the summary judgment order i don't believe that's addressed in the summer judge because i'm not i'm not sure your your colleague addressed it and their brief either i did not see reference to it i guess up it's possible i missed that i did not see it my understanding is there th letter is a crucial document because under the bus or a case there if there is no agreement if the document is not signed there is no agreement under the norgaard versus upjohn case that we have cited if if the other side has knowledge of the action then they need to move along and they clearly say you know you wire three hundred thousand dollars it is our contention that is wired outside the primitive parameters and then four and a half years pass well whether that means you win it's a different question obviously from whether that creates a disputed issue of fact on the statute of limitations with  inference a strong and your favor and that's exactly my point i can totally understand the questions that would come up in joining the trial where did the money go how did you spend it why was but we're in a motion for s order to undertake this intentional interference it's like you can't plug or a dead person you can't intentionally interfere with the contract that doesn't exist the country doesn't come into existence for more than a month the defendant is aware of the fact that there is something they're unhappy with and they wait for enough months to take with to take to deal with it and all in all even to make it even for them or there is no allegation appeal that's correct and that letter essentially followed some interaction between predecessor counsel and the levine neil firm which was the distributing agent for the class action reserve in which there were says essentially you've raised more concerns than you've answered questions with the documents that you've provided unless we learn more we have to proceed in ratchet this up and determine whether there's any problems with these distributions and we have to figure out what went on ultimately that occurred and what occurred was in the bankruptcy case predecessor counsel filed a motion essential to have the distributions clawed back there was other relief that was sought alternately that motion was heard it counsel you know what you just maybe i would let you win at trial on the statute of limitations but when we have to and the the trial judge has to make all inferences in favor of the nonmoving party when your client's lawyer sends a letter specifically addressing this specific transaction and saying we have all of these questions about it and in fact i don't think it takes many inferences to read this letter and in further your client's lawyer was saying we think this may be fraudulent  why with all inferences drawn in favor of the nonmoving party doesn't this at the very least raise a factual dispute about whether this statute should have started running when this letter was written because at that point in time predecessor counsel appellee was not aware of the underlying facts that  need as i understand california law you don't need to be absolutely certain as i understand it the statute of limitations in california under the delayed discovery rule is triggered by  suspicion it's triggered well the statute of limitations is triggered by a cruel and a cruel is when all of the elements of the cause of action have been completed when you add the discovery exception to the a cruel  you the moving party have to demonstrate that there is no factual question that reasonable investigation would not have revealed a factual basis for the claim i'm sorry your honor if you don't you have to demonstrate that there is no factual dispute about whether a reasonable investigation at this time would not have revealed a factual basis for the climb i mean i just i just don't understand reading this letter how that at the very least doesn't create a factual dispute that bar disbursement was improper as well as other dispersement and that process ran its course as part of that process one of the things that was discussed in front of the bankruptcy judge and one of the things that the bankruptcy judge indicated we needed to do was to seek a centrally what you refer to as a charging order that would put us in a position pelley in a position where he  acquire the shares of roosevelt lost inc which was the equity owner of the bankrupt debtor roosevelt lost elsie and so appellee began that process and they began that  process in december of two thousand and fourteen how much time between the time you filed that motion and the time it was resolved by the bankruptcy court so how much time do you get told if we credit your argument the bankruptcy motion was filed on july th two thousand and thirteen where he had two routes to success here one was to roll back the distributions if that could happen and the other was if there were just reached distributions it did not get rolled back any money related remaining in the class action reserve would devolve to based on a police status as the equity owner of r l l and so that's why we went into court in december of two thousand and fourteen we got rid of execution we didn't executions we had a equitable tolling in there i did not hear hear well ok i mean we did argue it and the standard today is the no i understand it's ok can i ask you to move to the other point i think that your opponent raised here which is just the timing of when the contract actually was formed yes because it did seem to me that that he was right that the transfer i think it occurred sometime in march yes and then the contract that you are alleging was interfered with was not really the signatures of all the was as of february th which was about a month and two days before the well actually february so about twenty eight dollars days prior to the actual transfer being made and the district court specifically looked at that and said this is when the contract was defective judgment debtors knew that that the contract was effective as of that day these defendants did they're not parties to it well but the court specifically found an alter ego relationship and so the knowledge of the appellant's is imputed to judgment debtors and vice versa and the reason that alter ego relationship was found had to do with the among other things th hundred thousand dollars that dropped from the sky and the fact that all the evidence was that there was no basis for this money to be paid he explained to me the theory that the alter  o analysis goes to raymond and rodney for this for this purpose i believe that the district court's determination was that  confused which is which frankly but in terms of the alter ego analysis what the court determined was that the hudson hudson and the individual songs were alter egos of one another and also that hudson in the individual sons acted as alter egos of the judgment debtors in connection with these particular with this particular transaction and so the court as i understand it imputed the knowledge of the judgment debtors concerning the contract based on the long history of these machinations not just as relevant to this case but the companion cases that  involved raymond and rodney issue for also and so that was the basis on which i believe the court made a determination that the knowledge of the contract that the judgment debtors had could be imputed to hudson up five months after the plan was confirmed for purposes of manufacturing these exact transfers at issue and there is some evidence as to what happened with respect to the money we asked for all the evidence concerning the back up any documents related to the services performed and what we got was a bank statement and that big statement reflected that there was a deposit made of three hundred thousand dollars there was supreme that that was sort of made up out of whole cloth and i think taking all that together the district court determined that there was an alter ego relationship and and that's how the determination was made that the contract was in existence and that tells you about what evidence is there in the record that the appellant's induced the judgment debtors their father and uncle to breach the solemn argument seems here the evidence is actually the other way around that it was you know perhaps the father and uncle masterminded this and you know perhaps the appellant's common sense that guess they knew about it but but is there any actual brecker evidence in the record saying showing that the appellant's were the ones who induced their judgment debtors to breach the settlement agreement i would say the evidence is circumstantial and it's based on again the setting up of the company there seems to be no purpose for the setting up  t this seems to us to amount to circumstantial evidence from which the court can clearly draw an inference and it's undisputed circumstantial evidence ok all right thank you very much  you have some time for a bottle if you'd like to use  it let me start with the easy part st on page twenty four of our brief we cite specifically the fact that the circumstantial evidence that we referred to was disputed and declarations were filed with a motion for summary judgment funds were not complied with we're certainly happy to see it if not we will have no alternative but to proceed to recover those funds from you both from both us custodian and from various recipients as fraudulent conveyance us that letter seems to be pretty straightforward they believe that there is an issue there is an action and they want to take action the case law on this is addison's versus state of california which w in our brief and it states equable a stoppel applies where a party recently and in good faith pursues one designed to lessen the extent of his injuries or damage and where there is no prejudice in this particular case nothing prevented filing of the motions the fact that it's in bankruptcy court nothing prevented the plaintiffs in that action and that police hear from separately initiating an action either in state court or in a divorce or proceeding in bankruptcy court the fact that their motions pending does not tall the action against my clients my clients are not part of the bankruptcy as they they're not brought in they really we don't know if they have notice of these events what they did is their charge was a single act of somebody else sending them money that's it and as it's been pointing out we are in a motion for summary judgment all facts or all evidence is viewed in the lies light most favorable to my clients and i think the only way the district court could have reached the conclusions a did is that the district court weighed evidence as opposed to giving my clients if i think i understand where the district court was coming from amount i don't speak for my colleagues but i'll just tell you that it seems to me pretty obvious what was going on here and i think it favors your opponent right i mean i don't know if you like my coll asked you a couple of questions that you had no good answers to i don't think there are good answers frankly so this whole thing stinks i understand why the district court did what it did but i don't know it may be right that as a technical matter your you know the court couldn't have granted summary judgment in the plaintiff's favor i get that but i don't think you should stand here and sort of try to pull the wool over her eyes as though all of this was on the up and up because it clearly wasn't the owner i don't know if well st of all i was not in the underlying case so i  don't i'm not privy to all the evidence what i have read seems this is a crisis things are happening very fast companies are going out of business left and right i can't fault people for taking actions they need to save their livelihoods right i can't fault him for taking actions that are not honest i don't think this is a question where somebody did something dishonest i will tell you one thing i do nothing my clients that anything dishonest i don't know where comes into this mix because i'm not aware of any employees doing anything so i'm not quite sure how this i am aware it looks bad i get it but i would like my clients that have an opportunity to stand before a trial or fact eight people the boss and explain to them folks this is what happened this is what we did and all they ask for is for that chance it's if it's as you as you said it they will be punished but if they can