the retention bonus and without paying to the female employees they retained at that point in time your honor there was a straight line distinction every employee that was retained by the company they were about twelve every male employee i recall what was unique about that as compared to the prior allegations of males being treated differently what happened in june that triggered this this notice that maybe you should file a claim that's a very when sean back was hired in june it was the last employee of this pool of employees that were going by the company and when at last employee was retained by the company and not required to return his retention bonus now you have this this framework of discrimination you have for example ten employees or twelve employees that were retained by the company every one of the males in this pool of retain employees we see there were changing bonus and were allowed to stay with the company every one of these females was not able to make that refund but what was it about that last one i mean you've said that there were prior male employees that were treated differently than in june there's sean vec but what was different about his situation as opposed to the prior and the claim was this fabulous i mean surely eleven out of twelve is enough i don't i don't know if eleven of the twelve is enough but there was at least at least one additional person that had that the decision had not been made as to whether or not to retain her or require repayment of the rich and i think that's a pretty weak position to to say that you need all twelve so let's say we don't possess what they rather than on summary judgment my clients offered affidavits based on their best recollection of when they first learned about the first one of these employees being raked retained and that required repays retention bonus and their best recollection in the affidavit was in late april or early may now that is a fairly ambiguous statement we were not afforded the opportunity to actually take discovered and find out the actual retention dates are we hire dates of these particular individuals but i submit to the court that it doesn't really matter when they were actually retaining a high they could have been secretly name and going back to  these male employees were retained first special projects they were not rich retained permanently after june twenty seventh of june and it wasn't until according to the affidavits late april or early may that they discovered that these employees were in fact going to be permanently retained it was at that point that the prior representations became volves it was at that point that they caused them to take further steps to find out the total circumstances surrounding it to the court that once discovery is taken if we are allowed to submit request to xylo to actually identify when these individuals were retained it very well could be after may thirteenth they were doing the best they could in providing their estimates of their recollection at the time let me ask you to talk about the contempt thing if you would please do i understand correctly that you're not you're not quarrelling with the amount for just whether there was contempt at all if that is a correct quarrelling with the issue of whether or not there were contempt and the amount i understand correctly that it's your position that you folks did know about the discharge injunction my clients did not know about the destruction of when the complaint filed ok and then at some point they're told there's a discharge stipulation with opposing counsel the first time we were informed of the just charging junction we reached a stipulation with opposing counsel to stay all pristine in the state court action and to proceed for before the bankruptcy court to adjudicate the issue as contention is that you had an agreement with opposing counsel that a stay would suffice and they then went back to the bankruptcy judge and said you're in contempt for not dismissing the case altogether and we want feeds well  thousand dollars your honor i know what happened i don't know if i can say that they certainly didn't stipulate that they wanted us to dismiss the complaint and what i represented took notes were stipulation he referring to there was a stipulation between myself and a follow immediately with proceeding through the bankruptcy court for an adjudication of these it's the reason i was reluctant your honor to dismiss the complaint and i know you're really going to do it but i did i want to get back to your contention is that you had an agreement that you could simply stay the action and not dismissal and yet they went ahead and told the bankruptcy judge i want to find these people in contempt because they didn't dismiss the case i'm not saying that your are opposing counsel wanted us to dismiss  said the opposing counsel is idaho the idaho statute of limitations is six months on this my preference is to state any actions on the state court complaint let's adjudicate this in the bankruptcy and in fact if the court believes that these are pretty discharged claims that these are not these are mistreated planes or otherwise we will immediately dismiss the complaint which is what it to this would you want to do what do they agree to they say they stipulated that we would proceed forward in the adversary proceeding now they didn't r case says that it's not a it's not a violation if you didn't know about it right ok with then they told you about it you kept the case on the books anyway you're like the case is kept on the books with the understanding and stipulation that they did not have to answer they did not have to do anything after we became aware of the discharge injunction we did nothing further to perpetuate that issue other than stay the state court action and go before the bankruptcy court and with that remedy this charge to remedy the violation of the injunction he just left the lane there and he ignored it and he refused to do anything further he didn't go before the bankruptcy court to have the matter adjudicated promptly instead he just ignored it you know like you didn't go before the back started with in the briefing last question for you you filed this declaration with the bankruptcy court stating that there was a stipulation yeah right that's that's what you're telling us it was their response to that declaration filed by opposing counsel in other words that they say to the bankruptcy court now that we didn't have such a stipulation or that's not what our stipulation was anything of that sort now the never disputed that there was a stipulation i think they stipulation that they would stay the state court action but we wanted to dismiss the complaint and my point was in judge morgan if you read her or her initial hearing on the matter that we had before her she understood that because if in fact we had dismissed that complaint gone through the bankruptcy court and had the bankruptcy court agreed with us that those were postage charge claims we would not have been able to pursue them our statute would cork it can be or it can be just a complaint to the human rights commission that says hey we believe we were discriminated against and then the human rights commission can do want to two things either it can well it will first investigated and if in fact it believes that there is a discrimination volved it can bring its own proceedings which would be something outside for my clients my clients certainly after the discriminator after the investigation is to the the contempt finding to a certain extent there are do no go issues there but with respect to the late claims both pre partition claims and discrimination claims it's subject to an abuse of discretion as well request for relief from the bar gates they submitted all of the evidence they had they did not request any additional discovery and none no requests as reflected in the record and they submitted a request for collect that was based in part on the assertion that the claim was your post discharge or post petition and pretty confirmation when the summary judgment motion was heard the only issue there was whether the writing and was approved by the bankruptcy court the stipulation however reserved all of silence rights dialogue excepted that which was offered by the claimants in terms of slowing down the proceedings in idaho  understand it you stipulate that you can just stay the proceedings but you are going to object that you don't dismiss the proceedings that's correct your honor to get the stipulation resolved a motion that had been filed and a request for an order shortening time on a motion for temporary restraining order and that stipulation obviated the need for the court to adjudicate the motion for a t r o but it did not obviate the need for the court  point wasn't requiring them to dismiss the case before the just the bankruptcy court had a chance to adjudicate crimes i was what is the huge harm suffered by your clients or by the dignity of the immediately stop doing anything and state court i'm going to impose a no further cost on opposing counsel and i'm going to come with you to federal court and let's ask a federal judge whether what we're doing is that horrible and the rest of dismissing a state claim when you can just say look i'm going to put it on ice nothing else is going to happen we're going to going to file a court and ask the judge whether this is  my i just on time i don't understand that the refusal to dismiss your honor is in the context of climate who refused to do anything to put the onus on this debtor to prepare and file papers with the bankruptcy court to restrain it to put the duty and the dispute except by going for the record by going to the bankruptcy court you obviously couldn't agree on that point so one way or the other whether you are the ones who went as first and ask for  it over whether they went in first and asked for the chlorination it doesn't matter that you have to go to a court that spend the money to resolve this dispute so i don't understand how it is you are prejudiced by the fact that you were the ones who how the code is designed there's an injunction that says the climate would you would just spend less money if they had said ok we're going to put the state case on hold and now we are going to go into bankruptcy court and we are going to ask for th present their research to present the briefs they prepared to do all the work they were required to do at that point the debtors might have the ability to say i agree with that your bet is accepted from the discharge i don't agree with  of the investigation and factual affidavits that are required for that only then in response to those papers that the claimants file any papers in the court bankruptcy can i ask you a question is there not nine circuit law that says that a certain level of relief from state is appropriate but the analog here would be an agreement agreeing to certain relief from state but the parties reserving all of their rights as to prior violations of the automatic stay as well as perhaps those areas that are not subject to agreement and the creditor saying i'm going to go forward outside the court in the future on these particular items we don't agree on and i don't believe that agreeing to a stay as to the agreed portion lets the claimants off to the hook for the non agreed portion of the stipulation or over the acts that are outside the stipulation in those acts and in your position or in your opinion are that they filed the case in state court and they fatherly the claim with the e e o c or the human rights division that basically that's right you're listening they did have the right to file the claim with the city but it should have been made very clear that they were not requesting any monetary relief but merely were asking the e c to investigate and to do whatever so with the intent to recover any kind of monetary relief but both the initial charges so it was supposed to put that in that charge of the o c i believe that that would have been a the can with a straight face i can't why do they have to say anything at all about the the nine one one operator we're not looking for monetary damages i'm not know your honor i don't believe that's her prerequisite to filing a monetary complaint but this particular action is a prerequisite to filing my understanding of monetary complaint with respect to discrimination relied heavily on the fact that the claimant there and it her ios the proceedings made it very clear that she was not pursuing any monetary relief and those facts were among the fact that the court considered in determining that that particular debtor did not violate the discharge or junction or the automatic say i don't think that's a long way of saying no there's no there's a case that had those facts but there's no case assess that's what you have to do that you have to in exercising the rights you have on the law you have to say oh by the way i'm not also going to use this to get money can i just that's correct your honor and there's no case that goes the at some points the question of whether or not they have a claim and when the claim of those winds up being a question this was a novel summary judgment and if it turns out that they did not the getting bonuses and why not the bankruptcy court how to resolve disputed facts when considering the excusable neglect analysis on the motion for summary judgment however the court accepted i believe all of the facts and the climate speculations  june june and after her after the confirmation plan but a month later when the other two women who worked for her came and said by the way you know day your honor what she learned in june is just the end of a lot of information that you obtain yet even if that's the first time in which you became fully aware the fact remains that within a week she had a state court action on file before the july pass me thirteen's is not an administrative claim is it that's correct your honor so if it's not an administrative claim you can't file it in the bankruptcy court by july first isn't that right that's right yes and the fact that she had time to file something by july first that's not the swansong you keep putting this new brief in the argument standing here with a straight face but it makes no difference your hon claim with the bankruptcy court to get my money what kind of claim can she filed the backups the court for something that  it are we agreed on that let's say all this stuff was happening and she has no idea never heard about it didn't know about the bonuses first she runs about is middle of june you're on  how kind of clam a clue before she knows anything about it the jensen case you had this charge of toxic waste some time far back and soon as that occurred theoretically someone could a claim on that but the state of california didn't learn about it until just before bankruptcy and had time to file a proof a claim during the chapter seven case so this court found that that claim arose in time to be part of the bankruptcy seem completely different this is a situation where she does not find out about the claim until the middle of june after the this charge period has ended after the plane has been  fact in order to focus on a particular legal point you understand that aspect of of all advocacy yes your honor case so the fact that you personally disagree with the date i've chosen to ask you about is interesting but not particularly  affidavit ok now i understand you you doubt that and i understand that you just feel good and you understand i also understand that you think that's not the question i thought that there should be concerned with ok i will accept  those things but except that i in fact i'm asking you about that so this woman does not know a thing about this claim has no information about it until that day ok yes your hon what kind of claim can she have is in the bankruptcy for something that she only learned about in the middle of june or bankruptcy purposes or are that person still has a claim that arose pre confirmation if she has time to participate in the how can this big claim that that's fairly contemplated before the cut of day because in mid june on your hypothetical she now knows all the facts you know is to know that she has a claim and she still has time to file that claim with the bankruptcy court it arose for most purposes yes i guess that's the part of your answer that just completely baffles me i have no understand if the then the state claims period hands may where the court is balancing the needs for including all claims no matter how remote and contingent in the bankruptcy case but recognizing that certain claims should not be because the claimants did not know about it in time in time to participate in the bankruptcy proceedings of action or reasonably should have discovered that he has cause of action after the date of gift jarvey he fairly contemplated that he has a cut at a cause of action before the date of the charge you just can't possibly mean that and certainly didn't say that it's completely i would make there your honor says that the court misapplied the law that's reviewed de novo she decided on a summary judgement person with disputed fact she did not apply any of the pioneer for factor tests she did not apply any of those