c if you go to that section of the restatement you'll find that it only provides an exception to claim preclusion when there is no court available where the plane master of the complaint and because they chose to pursue it in state court when they had the federal court route where they could have bought both that they can't now try to bring it i understand that's your theory but that's not exactly what the long as the court deciding the st case had competent jurisdiction to issue a final binding judgment and there's no doubt that that was true in this case and in terms of the was or could have been you make your decisions and you have to live with them they decided to jostle him for the response cost in indiana under indiana theory probably because they're easier ok i believe when i do read all of the cases i realize that the th circuit decisions and show that it seems comfortable applying indiana and it says that under the full faith and credit speech if a state court would find it claim precluded under analogous circumstances then the applied physical construction of remedial action came at least eighteen years before this suit was filed when reinforced concrete cap was constructed to landfill and contain residual contamination in judgment is denied was there and there was another of you tried to file a nd motion in the district judge wasn't very happy about that correct grant was there any further effort to raise that issue make sure that i understand the wrinkle and we can get past it by saying nobody spicing about the small right now i get checked ok the district judge said i think at the time of the final pretrial conference wasn't it in connection to you moved to amend your answer to include the statue limitations about was denied because the court found that it already ruled on that issue that was years earlier that was before yes that was years earlier  the district court have to discretion to decide whether he would entertain another motion or not and he decided that he would not allocated to johnson should have been higher than what the final judgment contained there were pointing to what we believe is a complete lack of evidence on the allocation arguments when johnson had the burden and did not  explaining that we have this court system that is split up between state and federal that there is a way to justify the full faith and credit statute with that split system there are certain statutes that congress carved out and did not give to the state courts here i should alternate basis by the way they did look at the elements of proof and also determined in addition to this that the elements of proof between the claims brought by slater in the claims brought by a dog or not were sufficiently different that that alternate basis al five years after they already lost that point and it was the rd time they brought up in trial court the court and i don't procedural grounds and you think there were sound reasons to do that but if you look at the substance to iran squarely in the murray see again and has the same outcome  is to clean up an entire site not to clean up in one spot that's never been the goal of circle of a cleaned up completely so that human health and human virus protected for the long haul john wants you to say that a partial excavation equals  remedial and they do that obviously so they can dodge paying for the contamination that caused but the answer is in the statute just look at the definitions for removal and legal action if you compare the two they talk a lot about the same concepts in terms of actions in response to a remedy this tragedy in reaching determination of removal versus remedial the district court relied on certain regulations issues are probably aware of the supreme court in the case of currently deciding whether is allowed to join a case then it must join the cases for all its pieces we think that indiana was different we pointed to a handful of cases that indicate that is not the law it can be a permissive situation and in this situation in particular between the two parties and so they didn't much care how the contractual arguments worked out because if they didn't have a dog in that particular case they couldn't decide whether the contract required one party or another lack of any economic analysis to support these ideas of the windfall and economic opportunity that the record contained information about the insurance are you the property if you purchased  well it contains an insurance policy information segments of the policy including their determination for replacement value maximum coverage which was about seventy million dollars yeah they got shortly afterwards so they put a policy in place at the outset during the bidding process of bankruptcy and they weren't sure if they were when you get the property so they put something in place pretty quickly thereafter and they just did that policy amount downward they weren't sure how much investment they were going to put in the eleven times as much yeah they're going the court went into that actually in court discounted the value of the insurance information i think so the court noted that there was a lack of buyers when the place was still a going concern the few months earlier and they were trying to sell facts support the determination many fair market value is something closer to the actual price paid rather than the amount insured to replace an updated operating facility so the court considered but then discounted the insurance information because it's not  this economic opportunity the poor talks of there's no calculation no anything to back that up this is a theory that was put forth but never proved up i think that's a key difference that we're not arguing payment that into escrow and the pre determination that it was going to cleanup costs and the language in the purchase agreement this well as the sophistication of the lawyers involved why isn't that evidence for the courts i want to pick up with a point the judge gave brought up nobody wants to do these cases twice that's the problem with this prior jurisdictional competency requirement it allows a p go down the block and file it again at the federal court in this case you know her after five years of litigation where a room full of documents was produced and reviewed by lawyers and there was substantial most in practice that's unfair to defendants that's inefficient for the court it's the very claim splitting that the indiana courts wanted we argued in the district the state judge agreed that the l a could not be applied retroactively to joslin which had left for work wayne eighteen years or so before the statute went into effect  the indiana supreme court ultimately disagreed eight years later doesn't change the claim precludes that fact in the st judgment but it does point out this that eli claims have been dismissed in a inter lock order indiana laws just like the federal law in terms of a fifty four b it could have been revisited in the state court the trial court it could have been appealed probably successfully val bruna knew about the lawsuit and don't kid yourself it's a big company had had more years from the new york and the chicago office of greenberg traurig get their elbow through this whole deal they knew thing they could have gotten and they had a year before the final judgment was entered in the state court case to save it and they did nothing action and the intended purpose of building that trap was to permanently close and contain the contamination in the impediments and you have a player playing a party has to know when they're doing the work what is indiana any gypsy but you don't have it from us we're reserving our right to order full remediation this property and dahlgren to recognize that because they set up fish corporate shell game they put evidence to support the double recovery aspect of this case which was and is just based on the fact that they bought these assets for six million nine hundred thousand and immediately on the closing date they insured them they could have joined up pending suit and we could have resolved this all in one swell swoop they could have gotten a declaratory judgment that says hey you got to pay for all of this right off the star