have to dial back in  yes your honor if the if the case were open today i think department doctoring it could conceivably have an effect on the think that's the case and therefore the part of doctoring would apply but there has to be some you know it's important for the bankruptcy court to look at these claims before they are filed in order to determine whether or not the bankruptcy trustee is engaged in acts that are either beyond the scope of the bankruptcy trustees authority made to the bankruptcy judge at the time that your client was engaged to represent the estate and related matters in florida and or the and to apply barton in a way that exceeds there's no other context i'm aware of where a judge made rule expands the statutory jurisdiction of the federal court the others act i think it's important to mean why should b courts is that is that hayes malpractise insurance policy that's going to pay any judgment that may obtain recover three hundred thousand dollars  that an insurance carrier is involved in this case but mr brownlee would probably be better to address that issue i guess my question is the there wouldn't even if they were still open there wouldn't be this is a new this is a new question for this for this circuit the few cases that have involved the barton doctrine we have not had one where the bankruptcy status is then wrapped up in his bank included  alice's of the ultimate question which is is the answer larry proceeding related to the bankruptcy case and here i mean it's i don't think anyone would dispute that it's related to the bankruptcy case if you go through the amended complain it's literally all about the bankruptcy case you know we're not interpreting a statute here were interpreting cases and you know holding of the cases is only as good as the facts it depends on  so i don't think that there's any any any reason to to go to separate from the other four circuits to have you know squarely reject this question and if you think about it  although mr frank is describing this this is a battle between dueling counsel this stems from a bankruptcy court sanction order which was revised several times complaint he made written demand on our clients to remedy these these purported misdeeds the bankruptcy is wrapped up in two thousand and seventeen so for two years there's not a word of any of the sort of allegations that are that are being made now and i think that's where we where we get into the integrity of the bankruptcy proceeding it's almost and i want to say tantamount but it's similar  how i work through the is you know i mean what we have to talk about is you know bankruptcy court jurisdiction and whether the civil proceedings are related to the bankruptcy proceeding and that has to do with the you know the nexus and then to my mind then all the circuit has an additional nexus requirement for the bankruptcy court jurisdiction over like this one and that actually acquirement is the one that your brother is as keeps referring to and that is that the action must quote conceivably have an effect on the leaving the next requirement for bankruptcy court jurisdiction sure judge martin so i guess that concession was made but i think in context what mr fisher was saying was there is no these cases where the conceivable effect test came about it starts in in the lem co gypsum case which is not a barton case doesn't even mention barton wants then it's you know it's reiterate d i suppose in the st martin case which is carter versus rogers and the way i read it at least is that the way when you have an ongoing you know an ongoing bankruptcy proceeding it's a way of determining whether is this really a bankruptcy issue does this really stem from the bankruptcy proceeding or is this something separate so i think because we're in sort of new territory with ok well what do we do if the bankruptcy proceeding is closed  i don't think that any of this court's precedent stands for the proposition that just because the bankruptcy proceeding is is closed that the ancillary case can't be related to the bankruptcy so i think what what would happen is you know st of all i don't think you you know if you ruled in our favor on the barton doctrine issue i don't think that you would have to say you need to go to the bankruptcy court i think it would be you were supposed to go to the bankruptcy court st and you didn't and there is a mechanism in the bankruptcy code to reopen the case and you know and who knows i think we have to be careful about separating you know the cases discussing bankruptcy jurisdiction from barton had they gone to the to the bankruptcy court a number of things could have happened you know the bankruptcy court could have said yeah this this isn't this isn't related and they would be uniquely situated to make that call because they had you know they lift that they lift these allegations they could say you know it's will give you leave to go file your lawsuit somewhere else  or they could reopen the bankruptcy proceeding and and address the allegations because of the concern about disses at least our client i mean this is a board certified bankruptcy attorney who's in front of it does but i think that's the whole point is that barton barton wants to give it's almost least the way i pictured is like a right of st refusal you now you've got to go to the bankruptcy court to make the call that the district had to make you know in this case is it related does it arise from is it something the bankruptcy court is is willing at whatever juncture they're there in to deal with and the bankruptcy court there's a range and you know we look at the cases throughout all the circuits there's a range of of outcomes that can happen when you go back to the bankruptcy court but the outcome you're looking for is we should  outcome i think should happen you know i think the district or got it right and there are a number of things that mr touts could have done he could've you know filed suit here and asked to have it stayed until he went back to the bankruptcy court he could have but i think it's critical to remember too the timing of this you know he he he was aware of and actively seeking a remedy for all of these this deed as of two thousand and fifteen to two more years go by before the bankruptcy proceeding closes and you know and then after it closes he brings a new case in a different jurisdiction telling sort of a different story and i think if if you do what mr tough is asking you to do what you're sensually doing is give you know black giving a blessing for an easy end around the bargain doctrine which  now i don't envy the judges because you had to go from bankruptcy and barton doctrine right into personal jurisdiction which is equally exciting but we have we have that issue floating out there too and i don't want to belabor the waiver the point because i think you know barton is of course dispositive if there's no subject matter jurisdiction you don't need to reach personal jurisdiction question but if the court has any questions about our personal jurisdiction issues but the reason he filed this case after the bankruptcy a state with close was because he he tried to appeal during the bankruptcy of while the case was  four and under this court's jurisprudence that that is the test that you supposed to use in the garden contest to determine whether the case is related to the bankruptcy case