reasons he said that collateral estoppel does not prevent issuing the injunction here because it was making different determinations of issues against a different party so the judge did deal with qualify he didn't and  problem with the case maybe you can help me out all these issues collateral sample venue personal jurisdiction they seem to me to actually be for him which is what i think the district court said in other words we have this statute in the timing of my injunction me relate to that but i'm really not getting to the alternate merits of these and be your client so why isn't what what what was the abused in entering the why i asked the question i would think that would be appropriate yes but so that issue is not before the illinois court just on the illinois court cited on the basis of venue now they they are pretty quick and in fact you are from that same day there were a lot of the six cases that were argued there have been five decisions should already one of which was just issued last week so i would expect that this decision is not long in coming counsel i suppose you'll hear about that right away about the first requirement for collateral estoppel which is meant here the second requirement for collateral estoppel is that the issue was actually litigated in the first case there's no question about that we moved to dismiss in illinois precisely because of the form selection clause that was fully briefed the ir third and final element of collateral estoppel was the determination of that issue in the first case the critical and necessary part of the judgment there is no question about that either the form selection clause it was the basis for church to steve's decision dismissing the case for all three elements of collateral estoppel are met what we're left with is a case that is much like this court's decision in offshore sportswear where the court said that a prior dismissal because of the form selection different from the illinois case that doesn't matter as they sort of minutes ago collateral estoppel depends on whether the issue that the first court decided is the same issue that they felt was posed in the second case and that is undoubtedly true here this court that really goes to what i mentioned a minute ago that this court has held many times that when the claims are different in the two cases that is irrelevant for collateral estoppel purposes the key is is the issue fundamental policy reasons of reducing honester litigation during judicial resources our system is set up so that parties are entitled to have you know why in court decide in issue one time they're not allowed to see what happens in the first case and then if i'm not happy with they had to go ask the second court in another jurisdiction for a second opinion on the same issue of course they're busy enough as they are trying to keep up with cases that are filed every day with international business transaction judged just as prior when he was on the first circuit explained that the principal purpose of a letter of credit is so that if the parties get into a dispute that the beneficiary of the letter won't be able to return this money at the point of the point to the financial difficulties that some of the other affiliated companies are having such as legion but again there's no evidence at all they're whatever what happens with an affiliated company will have any impact whatever on mutual indemnity the companies that separate assets separate balance sheets and there's simply no evidence that or whatever that there california pis in michigan that's where the race was that's where these letters of credit where it is shoot it has never been suggested it wasn't suggested in either the underlying case or in michigan or in the illinois court for that matter an was going to happen in the central district of california he said california will await the outcome of the merits litigation whether that occurs in illinois or occurs in bermuda and make a determination whether injunction is going towards a permanent injunction under the federal rules yesterday and so we're governed by thread rules because we're in the federal court actually i think not and this is why this is the diversity cases that's the subject matter jurisdiction in this case with diversity that's true but in a diversity case the subsidy laws by the state the procedural laws by the federal and so we have federal rules and i think that's why you're king correctly at the very beginning of the case to keep them from getting any assets when you say that's were neutral and then that he was mutual indemnity submit that they are in from utah and why they've chosen for a litigation strategy to answer in illinois and do what they do i can't speak for them and i don't know what i'm saying is if you could have moved in illinois for the same plenary injunction but not obligated to correct right so instead we're using a jurisdiction to which you will object and it's only after that foreign jurisdiction makes its decision and that's appealed and all of the exhaustion at that time judge king in the central district will release the  and the case you have that the federal court has jurisdiction to do this would be what that venue is appropriate in california venue was appropriate in michigan that to understand the distinction between the two where our adversary has done nothing to challenge the bona fides of our case whether it be under the u c c or whether p under  procedure sixty five and judge king analyzed them under both powers to convince himself that we were right on either one they did not challenge before judge king or before judge will mirror in michigan are possible ringing the action there any issue other than saying it should have been brought in illinois and that's subject to form selection clause there's no logic to that judge just like there's no logic to the suggestion collateral estoppel applies to your church because skill has not ruled on the merits he didn't have any evidence like judge king good or judge your mirror here of whether we meet the injunction standard being more likely than e that's exactly what the judge has done but in doing that of course he's distracted things which are at the heart of a dispute between two parties one point two we pointed out to judge king and he recognized we do not have an adequate remedy in bermuda bermuda does not recognize fraud this crowd in the transaction standard under u c c law and  of fact that's not a that's not a legal determination it's a finding of fact by judge king which is afforded substantial deference and there must be showing up used to discretion like there's been no evidence to contradict our evidence there's been no showing that churchgoing opportunity you're not required to apply oh you know i know i write this first year is that right correct and i don't mean to be glib and suggest what difference does it make whether we filed it in illinois or filed it here we believed it was legally correct there wasn't some the various reason we had no desire to go off and march into three different courts we believe that was the appropriate thing to do is we read the law and the used to see the obligation where was the bank and where was the elysee this happened to be where the l t was posted why would we willingly walk into a situation where we could get conflicting results we assumed a larger burden if anything and we convinced judge king we were correct judge will mirror in michigan a way to judge king's analysis have anything to do with all of this defendants initially made a personal jurisdiction challenge which they abandoned once a judge to steal rule than illinois judge king stealing additional submissions on judge to seal ruling convene a conference call with the parties and you know in my experience unheard of effort to to grapple with these difficult issues and in conjunction with council meeting confer on what the controlling issues were we came up with eight issues which we jointly briefed and he determined correctly that issue number seven that dealing with section five one zero nine was the correct issue and he tackled it correctly and it clearly did not abuse its discretion in doing so ways they can sit on the sidelines and say we're having put it in their briefs they did they did but they did not ask for any determination by the court on the question of personal jurisdiction that was the question i have waiver clinton standpoint with rule nineteen as they never also never interjected that we interjected that in connection with judge king's question and it is issue number seven in the joint brief what is neutral and on the i agree with you the church has steele's ruling takes you out of the mix do i have an ability to answer this injunction and ensure it only as against bank of america and it was in that context that we vitally important when i say it that mutual i'm going to set on the sidelines here and made an election they made an election that they were not going to put on any proofs in this case they weren't going to put on any proof to contradict balance everything stepped up on our side they did not they've not offered any evidence what argument a lot of bald arguments from counsel but no evidence to contradict what we have offered both likelihood of success and irreparable injury  that by doing so they would have kept their toe in too far and it would have waived off on their personal jurisdiction issues we know that's not the law and judge king was correct to point that out that was a strategic decision on their part to litigation decision that they believe they were better off she had no boxing with judge king and not confronting the evidence in their better better off boxing today and pontificating about what it's rather than talking about evidence we're the only ones with any evidence in this case and that's why we've seen the church king was quite comfortable doing what he did and quite clearly did not have used discretion this isn't even a close from five one zero nine or will sixty five standards we have no e brought they could or they could be brought in the one you're stiction this would permit you to go around the country and i are in state court or if you have diversity in federal court to basically do a prejudgment attachment it's freezing the a pending something and don't you agree that this could be if there were twenty different little particles or piles of money that you could do it in twenty different states and twenty different states wouldn't be issuing rule sixty five and under section five one zero nine and because we are indispensable and there's no personal jurisdiction over us just as the court simply did not have the authority to issue an injunction