at this time we'll hear mam v capital versus marine transport logistics good morning good morning your honor may please the court my name is marcus not counsel for plaintiffs of pellets the court may recall that this is an appeal taken from a final judgment entered by the united states district court for the eastern district of new york wherein the court denied plaintiffs of pallas motion for relief pursuant to federal rule of civil procedure rule sixty that motion relief from the court's order of september second two thousand and fifteen which had granted t defendants motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissed plaintiff's federal statutory claims the court's dismissal of plaintiff's cause of action under the racketeer influenced and corrupt organizations act eighteen u s c nine one et seq is the main issue of this appeal this honorable court made me recall that the district court action arose out of a series of transactions perpetrated by defendants of these against plaintiffs appellant who were defrauded when defendants conspired by theft and conversion of property in assets when to do otherwise what is the new evidence that was not a matter of public record at the time of the trial were of the of the motion have which were included actually in as additional new allegations in the proposed amended complaint what we're arguing is the that the the new evidence that formed the basis for the rule sixty motion  this conflicting and duplicitous statements regarding a specific wire transfer in the psalm forty nine fifty where in the in the in the case below in the district court they had claimed that this was a wire transfer that contain and sixteen the defendants actually took a different story regarding that specific wire transfer claiming before the federal maritime commission in a completely unrelated action that that wire transfer had been  for the purchase of a boat trailer which in this case m t l and others had allegedly sold it to the complainants in that proceeding at the federal maritime commission in that proceeding mercedes and the subject portion actually were not an issue but once we came aware of that representation regarding the wire transfer forty eight forty nine fifty we explain in our brief that that that duplicitous representation was the trigger that had brought us to the complainant in that proceeding to wit middle east asia alpha and its owner alexander so fall of and the his other companies whom i actually did not represent  in the in the proceeding at the federal maritime commission on till the proceeding was actually dismissed i was retained for the purposes of the deal but once we became aware of this duplicitous representation as a trigger which i like to call it at that time we learned that that the that the defendants had continued their fraudulent activity regarding the subject mercedes and porsche this time representing to the complainants middle east asia and its owner of your honor the the only thing that that invoice actually shows that is defend its claim that they had sold the subject mercedes to middle east asia alpha f c e which at that time to us had been a corporation  located somewhere overseas in actually in dubai which we had no way of contacting you didn't know what middle east asia was in two thousand fifty we did not know who they were except for them being listed on the invoice states and upon investigating the matter at that time their counsel had actually assisted us with understanding that this fraudulent activity regarding the mercedes and porsche had continued that the defendants had produced these  invoices purporting to indicate that the defendants had purchased the subject mercedes and porsche from an auto auction warehouse known as part and at that point had proposed a business venture where in  that that the defendants were actually engaging in in an ongoing scheme where they were exporting stolen cars from the united states into dubai where they could be sold with a clean title  forth in his affirmation and i can also respectfully refer the court to paragraph i remember correctly it is paragraph one these paragraphs one hundred six of the proposed amended complain explained in a deposition in a completely separate matter that's actually still ongoing right now in the united states district court for the district of new jersey that once the cars are ride arriving to buy  can be sold nobody in the united states no one in dubai or overseas really hold gives much weight to it to a title it doesn't mean anything and he actually explains that and that specific language is also no you're running he's actually speaking at that point in in general terms and i do have have the language in front of me and this is actually what's included as an allegation in paragraph one of six of the proposed amended complaint he explain s that cars exported to dubai for united states can be sold by someone other than the owner or names title holder and that in dubai nobody cares what the title says and that titles are a u s document and they don't hold much weight around this was a scheme that the that the defendants were engaging so i'm not sure how that's going to play out if this case gets sent back if there's already a judicial a pending judicial determination involving essentially the same property definitely the same or sadie's additional like to point out that the standard here is an abuse of discretion and this court has pointed out that extraordinary circumstances have to be present to be relieved from judgment and i don't believe that the judge in this case has abused her discretion especially  as you pointed out in light of the february twenty third of two thousand and fifteen e mail that notified counsel of the existence of mr the fall of middle east asia which was more than six months before that were ordered diligence in trying to ascertain any additional evidence and there's no evidence in these proceedings that would show counsel's due diligence in trying to figure this out that's my answer to this question that between the parties and no new property is involved so there's no risk of ongoing criminal activity so that's my argument on that question so there's absolutely no concept between the parties and no business