training sort of easier for you to understand let's start out with representative ten minutes on this one so if you could set the clock at ten minutes i'd appreciate it my plans take about five minutes we also request submit on the briefs on this release i did ok let's procedures that were not related to the appeal itself and so the first question i have which may be the first question you're about to address yes under federal rule sixty nine are we directed to follow the california procedures well my answer to that is no that rule sixty nine by its terms references california procedures only in relation to execution matters and if you read the rule itself it makes it very clear the procedure on execution if you look at sixty nine  records tell so everything in that sentence modifies the procedure on execution and what we have here is a motion for attorney's fees there are three to three nouns beginning with the procedure on execution number one  so i got a that's our position six nine eight does apply to the levee procedures to the execution procedures wage garnishments you would adopt state law for those procedures but not for situations like we the point in time that we made a motion for attorney's fees there was no judgment to execute on the judgment already been satisfied that's another point that we made in our relief you can't have a proceeding supplementary to execution a judgment when the judgment is already satisfied we're moving for attorneys fees for post judgment attorneys fees and we believe that the court wrongfully disallowed our reliance on civil code seven hundred seventeen california the district court looked to the california and judge enforcement of judgments law and i think kind of not knowing where else to look and decided well we'll just have a bright line here will say after the satisfaction under the california yes if you look at sixty eighty two three says that a judgment means a judgment or decree entered in a court of this state which is obviously not what we have here this is a judgment entered in the court of the united states and if you look at sixty five zero four zero attorney's fees incurred in coursing a judgment are not included in cost collectable under this title unless otherwise provided by law attorneys fees incurred in forcing a judgment are included as cost collectible under this title if the underlying judgment includes an award of attorney's speech to the judge and creditor our underlying judgment didn't even include an award of attorney fees to the judgment creditor the two thousand and one judgment that was the subject of this first appeal merely said you know plaintiffs prevailed defendants do not prevail in their counter claim period we had to come back later by this court then we came back and made a motion for attorney's fees on appeal which was then stipulated to be remanded back to judge white for determination and so we filed that motion and we filed our motion  proposed judgment fees almost simultaneously and then those were heard simultaneously so when our first trainees fees were awarded by judge white a lot of those attorneys fees were already post judgment fees because they were through october of two thousand and one and the original judgment had been entered in in february of two thousand and one so if we don't have ten months of post judgment attorney species that the judge did award prior to that the appeal going forward that happened after the was a bank levy case where ferdinand marcos assets were trying to be levied upon and it was all about the validity of whether judge real's order down los angeles you know just to deposit all the marcos account funds into the registry of the court was valid or whether the methods of process used were valid but there was nothing about post judgment attorney's fees in that case the chile s case that judge white cited also was specifically overturned by the california legislature in c c p sixty five zero four zero zero this was admitted in our opponent's free and confirmed in the miller vs givens case which we cited in our opening brief and then just yesterday actually i found in illinois case the california legislature overturned the julio's case so seventeen seventeen was a valid basis for awarding attorneys fees to us post judgment we think that this is federal court territory to quote we're near p g d six the basis of recovery of attorneys fees is the underlying contract not the judgment the a pelleas position is that the judgment merged with the contract and therefore all of our remedies