yes and since we have to figure out whether we have jurisdiction if you were successful on those other two issues when we just send it back to the district court or distance yes we braced up at the apple league raised the issue that you could de nov of the bankruptcy courts memorandum of decision of may sixteenth two thousand and ten why not we felt that again the cases that were cited by the trustees counsel in fact indicated there was you know what we view with a situation me i may be asking a different question when your answer why was the notice of appeal timely run timely with respect us notice of appeal was we believe it was timely ok tell me here's here's what here's what i understand happened and it depends on what of course what happened in the district court but there was a rule eight zero one five motion for reconsideration that's correct which was not for leave to file that motion for me here and then the thirty days appeal for this court runs when she denied it on credit twenty seven two thousand and eleven when she d our motion for a rehearing well let me ask the question differently as i read the case law i think you required at least the argument is you are required to file a time we notice of appeal from the underlying judgment that that notice  for hearing that triggers as i understand it the eighty fifteen that in fact start the thirty days running from the time that she has did not i motion for reconsideration i don't believe that she's got to or has take an appeal to this court began to do it so we have to read what the district court did it has treated your late motion for a hearing as a timely motion for the hearing and they have the thirty days in reference to a standing order which many courts have let's say well ok here's the rule for timeliness but in this courtroom over time when this will be different i don't mind that language as including a court order that tempted to read it the way i just described i do if that's the proper reading for it i think at that point in order to make your eighty fifteen motion timely such as the extension from the time from taking neglect she says that the delay was seven days instead of december fourteenth it went to december twenty first i think she read it as if she was backing up that eighty fifteen motion to bring it back to december twenty first i know your time is running out and have she wanted to address this when you get back up on i'm interested in the question of whether the district whether and i know you'll have fifty because there was although she dismissed it on the basis that there was no appeal and she said herself she has no jurisdiction we of course argued in our first issue on this that in fact much like first year mortgage much like relating back when only ministerial acts have to be done after the filing of the notice of appeal and here putting aside the pre judgment interest issue which i really do want to put aside what you ha you want to claim a major complaint and you decided voluntarily to dismiss it that's truly not a ministerial act by the court doesn't that put you scrap flat in first here problem we stipulate to the dismissal and if you agree that stipulation your honor we say that that is for the very purpose of expediting final judgement which came virtually that same day large that same day and then filed side by judge when that wouldn't have create days including a three day morial day weekend there appears to be compared to jackie really construction and expedited procedure headed for a final judgment and a final judgment and this is an important ministerial why is it in my head two were right on point the notice of appeal to the district court was on time their district court dismissed the appeal as untimely then moved for permission to late fire that motion for reconsideration the court granted them the  permission to act if you read nine zero zero six be it's if you request a reconsideration within th time allowed the court can allow or if it's after that time this expires it's not timely it can't be timely the time is expired but the court can allow the act to be done and the act that i know i wanted was to have a timely motion for reconsideration filed because filing and i'm timely one wasn't going to do them any good but why can't we read be two one two against them the act remaining the act to be done was the act of having a highway motion for reconsideration it could be considered by the court it doesn't have the language that we have another rules they are the court could entertain and untie only a motion for reconsideration i believe the rule the first part of the rule says order the period in large if the request is made before they have a motion filed that would be entirely an end to pain so i'm not sure i mean the those seem to be fairly well things one is if you want if you if you know you don't have enough time to file the other is if you know the date for reconsideration they had it's merely allowing a late motion for reconsideration to be filed is is that your in my view and in my reading of the rule and the advisory committee comments regarding the rule i'm not granted leave to appeal know position what's go back to the question we asked before let's assume that you know one five motion had been filed time would that have extended the time to file a notice of appeal from the underlying memorandum first here are right on point you know i'm i'm trying to separate here the question of the district court's jurisdiction from ours so let's look at i'm worried about a larger stiction on appeal at least initially the district court enters a judgment at some point in after the entry of the motion of the order to you know i knew motion for reconsideration and a notice of appeal was filed that would bring everything up to us approved in fourteen days correct i believe so your notice of appeal at least allow us to review the judge's denial of the motion for reconsideration why wasn't it time as to the district judges denial of the fifteen motion even because the question is whether you just wanted jurisdiction we did why wouldn't why wouldn't that motion for reconsideration appropriately put in front of us the other issues you're addressing which are the first year issues i understand exactly i think where you're going your common whether or not has jurisdiction i understand that what you're saying or suggesting is that perhaps the notice of appeal filed in fourteen days of the denial of the motion for didn't appeal be underlying judgment can only appeal the denial who fifty nine motion we would look at that we would we would say five the time we don't have some people when i can't find a reason i'm asking these questions i can find in the case law anything that to the literal reading of rule eight zero one five and i agree what it refers to initially is a standing order ners no standing order in this court changing the time you know it's fourteen days there's no word that says it's twenty five days or any other period it's fourteen days in this jurisdiction i'm a different question let's assume let's assume everything is time and the judge says you're just wrong on your eighty fifteen question and you say these were new facts so i'm not really fighting about the airline judgment i thought i've come up with an argument i didn't have before you should have granted here rehearing judge and she doesn't and you file a time wait and you file a notice of appeal simply from that can we review that can we review simply the denial or grant of any fifteen motion i believe you know i believe that you probably could that would be my first reaction because i believe that there be as and i start to say earlier i believe that your questions regarding first here were exactly right on point what we have here is a memorandum opinion granting a motion for partial summary judgment now anybody knows that that's not a final order but there is a rule in eight zero two that excuses a reasonable but mistaken belief that you are filing from a final order and the supreme court has defined that is only and i quote only when that to dismiss those counts but we certainly didn't have to prejudgment interest remains to be determined we agreed upon that so a final judgment could be that it wasn't a prejudgment interest issue simply a matter of calculation it was not your honor because there was nothing in the memorandum decision that set the date as to when the pre judgment interest would be calculated from there was a statement saying that the trustee is entitled to pre judge insist and that prejudgment imitative transfer it's shut right from the day transferred ten percent but the dates of transfers were not in the memorandum opinion they were in the complaint but r and i denied those allegations of the complaint they were resolved that it were the bankruptcy court resolved that in its order so that was done i mean you had all these arguments but then the bankruptcy court said you were basically in the fights over in the final judgment the calculation of you have to go back and you have to consider the history of the jewish rary and the reasons behind maybe route fifty four b for certification or final judgment before appeals were filed people didn't really know when they have to appeal if we are going to say well gee whiz it was a interlocking tory order but it was a subsequent dismissal of claims whether those claims were dismissed by the stipulation of the parties or whatever they were going to kind of take it all back to the dark ages of when do we have to appeal the purpose of rule fifty eight is to make a bright line your appeal is due after the entry of this final judge but that's the first you're already eliminate the right line it's said well close enough here only to the extent that the interlocutory if i will order if the order that was appealed from rather than the final judgment was such an order that had been previously must in effect be in a final one that they take it that's your position i believe so i think and that was the clear language of a first year and i do not believe that the dismissal of remaining counts is a ministerial act i know you're over time so out of the question i think you can answer yes or no assuming that we find it all your jurisdictional arguments fail when the district court should  why why should we in the first instance when the very capable district judge has thought about the case and has a record why should we do it in the first instance other than other than it skips a step process which is that the an argument for and i think that the decision before this court on their merits will be relatively straightforward i mean i can boil them down and i was looking to see if there was some special reason about this case there was an event about to happen that was around that you needed decision in front of or something where the answer is no you just would be easier for everybody not not unless there's a kind of concern about you know starting marshal issues and we just don't see any in this case interesting enough the supreme court decided to make bellingham yesterday that doesn't change anything