good morning your honor smart the simon on behalf of pacific gas and electric company their police apparently the appellant is not present in court you have fifteen minutes all right up to fifteen minutes husband's cases over the past ten years there were fourteen cases filed within the seven years of the two thousand and seventeen case that was filed she filed her most recent chapter thirteen case on september  fifth twenty six two thousand and seventeen it was a skeletal filing the court pursuant to its normal rules issued an order requiring her to complete her documents within fourteen days she filed a request to extend that stay extend the time period for forty four two weeks and judge lafferty issued an order granting an extension to file a one week and in that extension order stated that the extension was actually to october i'll get to that issue a bit later that was a majority sure i get the week right it was actually short of a week an actual week would have been october sixteenth in fact the documents were eventually filed on october seventeenth same day that the case was missile and also an order which precluded her from filing another case for one year i'd like to quickly well the one you know has expired now that's correct it expired on november fifteen in time so this seems that it's moot at this point and issue and there was no reference to the bar in her opening brief in any event so i would assume the court would not be particularly interested in addressing that not to my knowledge but it certainly wouldn't be surprising to me if she did march into the bankruptcy court she is currently in litigation also with the c p u c and in the us district court against so you're taking the reasonable position that fourteen prior cases does not justify  the prior case is clearly justified dismissal of the case for bad faith there's no issue there the court was quite clear in talking about the serial and abusive filings in the past in the case is when judge lafferty following remained to the bat from the bat really looked at the case basically let me just quickly go through the procedural background what happened i think we're familiar with a mismatch right dates on the extension so ok we were familiar with that all right so i want to i won't go into that in detail what what was key about the mismatch was that appellant claimed that because columbus day came in the middle she therefore had an extra day there's certainly no authority for that so under the most liberal reading of the order meaning that if the order had actually said ok you have an extension until october sixteenth the debtor did not comply with that she filed her documents on the seventeenth she has in all of her many cases asked for extensions cases have been dismissed as a result of her failure is to comply with required filings and or to comply with court orders i don't want to use the expression that is a no brainer but it certainly seems that in the event as judge lafferty said that the case had not been dismissed as a result of her failure to file documents it would have been dismissed in any event in view of p request and motion to dismiss the case which had been filed on october fifth p g and e had filed the pelly we had filed a motion to dismiss the case for a bar to future filings and for sanctions the chapter thirteen trustee also filed a motion and also requested a bar of probably had requested a bar of ten years based on other precedent judge lafferty was quite conservative and granted the one year bar that was requested by the chapter thirteen trustee and did not order sanctions case i would suggest that the appellant's failure to appear in court today is just one more abuse of the system requiring  to argue the matter to brief the matter and to continue to expend funds when she fails to pursue her cases she has failed to make any payment p g and e for quite some time she has no power appear because she did file a very late request for an extension of time so i think our order said that if she doesn't appear she gets a bit on the briefs today i understand that and my understanding is that the court also allowed her to show evidence that she had paid for a transfer transcript to the best of my knowledge there's been no nothing filed in that regard i'm happy to answer any questions i think we