out with respect to the motion to transfer and dismiss that the folks the trial court focused on the case piece that are but in that case particularly the trial court had really analyzed that to complaints to come to the determination of the issues were identical they looked at the central questions in both of the cases they noted that they had the same parties and that the two actions differed only with respect to the remedy that was being sought even though the underlying court in this case quoted pacesetter focused on pace that are really dismissed  action that they were presented with with the bankruptcy court subst substantive consolidation case in which it was the theme parties the trustee of the bankruptcy court was in an international company and so to then transfer those assets and then you know claim that you know bank of montral you you can't recover we can't add sally or and that has to do well i mean now it sounds like you're going to the merits of whether they should have amended the judgement but i thought i was saying it was it was what i'm saying is that the is an abuse of discretion in so far as district court discretion whether to transfer enough what do you have that says it was actually an abuse of discretion to keep this case well i would say it's looking at the totality of the circumstances this was a consolidation case had with the bankruptcy court in january of two thousand and ten bank of montral got their decision in illinois in may of two thousand and ten there was a day that was issued by judge carlton east and they sent distract which  i'm saying it's interesting that in the findings of fact in conclusions of law that honorable judge bardwell issued in the bankruptcy court a large portion of it is literally discussing alter ego and single enterprise and what was even more interesting is that the trial court in this decision highlighted in one of the footnotes rule fifty nine and stated that there was no timing issue that twenty eight days doesn't apply  bringing a motion to amend because the whether or not you add a judgment doubt or does not go to the merits of the case so baker of montreal didn't have to bring this national the nor district at the time it did the northern district didn't have to decide the case because you know it was sort of forced into it because there is this rule that use it or lose there you haven't pointed to anything that precludes it from keeping the case and it's an abus the time that the district had to make this decision that this record didn't know that you didn't know what would happen but knew that it had this question about whether there even would be jurisdiction of they gave this case to the bankruptcy court and so why isn't that a proper question and a reason to keep the case and the trusts are not liable for our works have consolidated and so here the court says sawyer is liable so why can't we just proceed with that what's the problem with the bankruptcy court doing something different on a different question or even a similar question i'll give you brush it off their focus and choosing not to amend or excuse me to dismiss or transfer was simply that they're going to save the investigation of when the bankruptcy court have jurisdiction so we didn't really go right right and you abandoned the argument in the district court didn't you that that going to get this judgment amended violated the automatic stay well so as i understand it there was a declaration from the trust but it seems very self serving for a trustee to say you know ultimately bank of montral we have to pay you the state has to pay you you know let's i have no problem with you going to do that because it's going around the state in the bankruptcy and putting it he see completely different than what we have here because s k foods l l c was not contemplating bankruptcy but i don't think that that's the spirit of the law because i think the point is this that if you are taking in consideration a company that really would have no defense or chooses not to have a defense because one but they look good for a year right before they drop before they stopped they are talking correct yeah who else was controlling the medication here other than s i don't know is there i don't know style year was controlling it while he was can we know that he consulted about the withdrawal of the attorney is there anyone else you could tell us might have been supervising you know family's attorney that says that they're looking for somebody but as of right now they can't find anybody but again the congo's toho and he's the situation awareness of the litigation is not enough  matter here a motion to transfer or a motion to for an extension of time in looking for somebody who can make the decision fall short in my opinion and then the string of cases from good morning me please the court jim hiser on behalf of the happily bank of montreal as administrative agent the district court in this case gave mr cellier more than three opportunities to respond on the merits to the allegations and the evidence that the no had submitted to the court discretion and the district court looked at the complicated jurisdictional issues that would arise if the matter had to be transferred to the bankruptcy court and made a determination that it would be easier to decide the issue in the northern district proceeding th domiciled and so i don't think that there's been any showing or anything in the record from which an abuse of discretion could be found and finally with respect to mr saliers request for a stay based on his fifth amendment