and i'd like to reserve three minutes for about africa very well so i had to turn i think your honor the central issue in this case is whether the pennsylvania rules of civil procedure allowed the district court to enter so it's important to remember that this underlying dispute is between us pipelining and its sub contractor senate and this is a payment dispute relating to a construction project in hawaii essentially s or for the account of the fact that and from delivering any whopper to the defendant well my question is does the application of the rule mean that the question of set off is not among the initial so the rules are a little more relaxed in iraq the tories and answers are pleadings but they are not held to the same standard as normal pleadings in pennsylvania court all you have to do is say enough and this is the holmes case say enough to put the defendant on notice but the pla holds that you can't look beyond the pleading to contradict what the governor she was saying as its defense in other words you can't do what sanna acted here come in and say hey you know what there's no contract therefore we're entitled to judgment well no you can't do that and that's a violation of gross gross doesn't hold that you can't look beyond the face of the complaint excuse me the face of the answer when trying to figure out if the defense is need to have a factual hearing you look at some of these cases look at the only the operating engineers local sixty six dollars case in that case the just a mere reference to retain your mission to raise a defense you don't have to go into a lot of factual detail look at the collins case in that case the insurer only a failure to cooperate and for help that was good enough and look at the helms case the helms case status as as you look at all of these cases that i love to you have the litany right on the tip of your tongue but but here's the question as you as you look at these cases number one i think kay this is where there's no denial of liability most of these cases there's a denial of liability when there isn't the isle of liability there becomes a much case right what we started that we are to turn our back on that so i respectfully disagree that it was a good mission your honor because it and this kind of goes to the operating engineers local sixty six case in the construction industry when a contractor so i was going to wait to get into it but since you're into it let's get into the two hundred and six thousand dollars two hundred and six thousand dollars and the sixteen thousand dollars i know there's pluses there that agreement is that wrong that's not wrong your honor and i did want to point out in addition to the joint check agreement there actually is a provision in the p s i subcontract and it's discussed on page six of my brief and you i don't know if you don't want to be a because they were filed by a corporation not through counts and or the federal rules you can't do that what should have been as they should have been stricken yes i should have been given the opportunity to fight let's amended answers and those should have been the basis for further litigation situation i think it was a pretty case and the prisoner filed suit against a number of prison officials they moved for summary judgment it's a plaintiff responded to the motion and then in their reply brief they raise an issue they the district judge entered an order ultimately the just entered an order granting summary judgment to the prisoner appeal and this court felt well that yeah he had an opportunity to object to the report a recommendation but that wasn't sufficient he needed to have to respond and to put forth all of his evidence in front of the matched judge so this post facto you know will sixty motion is not enough to satisfy due process and frankly setting aside the due process issue it's not what the rules of civil procedure con that he answers to the answers to iraq the tories were p s i s opportunity to answer that it was its opportunity to her but there's a nd hearing that has to happen and no it doesn't have to be in person here your hon motion for summary judgment it doesn't have to be an empiricist hearing but due process to be satisfied p s i has to be put on notice they look for with all of your evidence bring it all in and that never happened p s i never had an opportunity instead santa took this oh u s pipeline let's say a half a one million dollars there's no other intermediate parties but you know there's a there's a debt and it's an any problem collecting let's say they only we were owed one hundred thousand dollars make it easy hundred and fifty thousand dollars left san access hey give me one hundred thousand dollars i mean title to this then say i could be entitled to an absolute reason that that's not the case here is because the amount of the set offs that are claimed by criticizing exceed the amount that for the sixteen thousand dollars yes for the two hundred and sixty thousand dollars that's the p s i s already incurred those are italy damages that p s i incurred those are rental frankly it's rental fees for equipment have legal rights to prevent your property from being taken and a lawyer can advise you more specific ok and then goes on sale as normal sort of a service a process you should take this paper to an attorney now in addition to pat the claim of the exemption form was provided as well and that claim of exemption form was he has size opportunity to  exemptions and the answer is that they may have that they are owed that money and they say and i submit to you that in the in the certificate of service when people start file their guard less of what us pipeline may have old to p s r yeah that we are only supposed to look at the hypothetical santa is owed five hundred thousand dollars from us pipeline ok yes now is it your i don't know well so but let me tell you the reason why i'm asking the question and why i need you to do a little better than i don't know now because either set off or part of this consideration or underwrote so with those cases in mind and this hypothetical it would seem that the law in the state of pennsylvania would say yes  you that p s i i under the garnishment should be obligated to pay the amount that in fact is zero to san ect it does not represent the entire amount another words i think there was one case cited where the i think they had garnished for nineteen thousand dollars the bank account only had seven as that then and the court under judgment without back charges but i'm i am saying that's the interpretation by judd sanchez and the question really becomes was back and what was to us bank like what a deal it's it says exactly that judge it's not p s one still it's an outstanding balance so the defendant a balance of five hundred and twenty two thousand seven hundred and ninety one dollars can't get more honor's question about the martin case because i've read it a little differently than your honor so in the martin case you have an attorney so you have a defendant who has an attorney in the situation represented him in two and one case the attorney representing a friend in his individual capacity but in the other case the defendant was rep the attorney was representing the defendant as trustee of a trust and that's important because when the plaintiff comes in and tries to garnish garnished settlement funds related to the individual claim a claim where he was represented as an individual the attorney says well hold on a nd i have a set off and it's these is that you incurred in your capacity as a trustee and what the court said wasn't that you can't do a set off at all it said look these are two different parties one the trust goes the the fees the other one is that person in this individual capacity has the settlement amount so what the court was saying wasn't that you can't do it and off it all is that you can't set up these fees that were incurred essentially by the trust  supreme court said well you don't have to give one thousand dollars you only have to give over the part that's left over when you take out all the setups and that's the one thousand nine hundred and eighty four case it's a lot more recent than the eight hundred and sixty five likes or county bank case or even and us pipeline it's proper the rights are defined by the contrast so if us pipeline isn't in title to the funds under the contract and us property there's there's no five hundred and thirty two thousand dollars because i think it's an entitle in the contract says you know yes there's a contract balance but p s i sometimes subtract these amounts subtract that amount that's two m t c risk irrespective of whether there's joint check agreement his size in total to subtract that it says that in the contract you don't even is arguments i will take the matter under advisement