sullivan agreement in a case that a case over which he presided in on page sixteen it continues with the settlement also presided that my day in court is being taken from he on the phone nation of the district court and the attorney general that judge grow oh once presiding over a seldom an agreement which is not correct in the first instance what district court and agency would misleading claims as a settlement agreement yander mole glen t bernie korda claims the sides and orders on june seventeenth two thousand and thirteen at appendix fourteen as a result the settlement that was placed on the record was a kid to an agreement in principle recording numerous documents to be prepared and executed in order to effect a complete resolution consequently the theory of a cell of an agreement never took honorable judge has said until there was a lot more to be considered and a lot more documents to to be addressed additionally first choice realty was in a state of dissolution at that time pursuant to the new york state business corporate law section ten zero five six and seven statu fifty percent interest shareholders can run but the assets of first choice realty without satisfying any of the creditors including the internal revenue service for which there are doubt ten years of tax returns to judge gross so ordered concerning a settlement agreement violates seven statues documentary evidence will also prove beyond doubt grow judd grow never presided over corporation first choice realty at any time because only the parties to to play time actions can enter those actions and first choice realty is not a party there in play times two actions as we look at appen consequently oh consequently he could not have a judge could not have jurisdiction in order for the attorney general to be successful there would have to prove with documentary evidence that and confirming the first choice really he was served with process to be a party to first choice to be a party to play times to actions on feb fifteenth two thousand and five process does not exist so consequently the act the that theory that there is zero for the lower court and the theory of the a g t in that judge groan oh head jurisdiction he was presiding over a settlement agreement does not morning your honor the district court was correct to apply judicial immunity to this case at the root of mr for cause as claims is an allegation that a settlement that justice grow who is a state agree that booker feldman the rocker feldman doctrine also applies i do your honor that's one of our alternative claims though if the rocker feldman doctrine applies why do we need to get to  here because of what mr for colors looking to do is invalidate not only the settlement that just as gross so ordered but also the myriad state court decisions that have upheld the validity o another matter feldman doctrine the first part of the analysis is not something that we should determine first because it's a matter of subject managers diction your honor we struggled with that when we were writing the brief we found several cases that because an action failed to state a claim it was unnecessary to reach worker feldman and that's why we put it as an alternative even though it's jurisdictional there have been courts that have declined to reach it just because worker feldman can at times before me and we thought the judicial munity was more straightforward but to the extent that broker feldman is in fact a jersey stiction doctoring this court certainly that booker feldman that that that's the first part of the analysis and if the rockefeller and doctrine applies then that's the end of the analysis that would be correct your honor under rick or feldman neither the ditch or court nor this court would be able to determine whether or not the settlement agreement was valid in the first place whether mr franco is seeking damages or whether or not he's seeking explicitly to avoid to void the settlement but determination in his favor would necessarily require a determination by a federal court that the state court issued an invalid order and therefore striking that order did the district court judge here dismissed with honor why would you believe that because the dismissal for the dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction would preclude him from coming into court and raising any incorrect i apologize your honor but a dismissal for subject matter lack of subject matter jurisdiction even if it wouldn't prevent mr for color from going into state court again i would just observe for the record that to the extent that mr for cola says that he's looking for his day in court he's had his day in court on about five separate occasions in the state courts in this case in this case he has litigated the validity of the settlement and if this court would choose to apply record feltman the state would be certainly quite pleased with that in that case judicial munity would be an alternative basis for we would ask this court to affirm the judgment here dismissing this claim whether be on judicial munity grounds or for lack of subject matter jurisdiction unless there are any other questions i will rest on my filings mr circle you have one minute the term and we wanted to see if we can resolve our problems this is discards the jury there's no jury ok go back to court he's caught and what happened is that in what the honorable judge of forget his name said there is no agreement he attempts to force an agreement on