issue but in terms of the merits of the case there is a detriment to the debtor in allowing and i assume you are called to make that's on the standing question that's right i was talking about it from a policy  you are making an assumption that this is detrimental to the debtor i am making an assumption that this is something that the debtor does not want to participate in because i think that assumption is born inference that a individual who's under a court order if someone just didn't care and they were under no you know it didn't matter either way that would be one thing but when they're on the other boys up twelve times for three  one right and that's a violation of his obligations and he's been obligated to prepare schedules and statements for example and he has not done so so i think if he if this were a free issue in the sense that he wasn't subject to any obligation to do something and he just didn't do it then i would agree that the inference could be either way that he just doesn't care or that he doesn't want to do something but i think you know in a situation where debtor refused to go after the probability to ban the transfer really doesn't have standing or doesn't have a bad faith argument that it doesn't want to get sued in the bankruptcy court by a trustee because it doesn't want to defend the client that's what you're arguing here essentially is that i don't i don't quite think so so let me let me take a step back and talk about the murphy not mary kate the murphy case which is the one thousand nine hundred and seventy six california supreme court establishes this rule that this entire involuntary case was designed to get around so in the murphy case the very similar situation we had a plaintiffs who was a wrongful death case who judgment of forty two thousand so in excess of policy limits she all state paid those policy limits save the forty two thousand i'm sorry paid the twenty five council council the bottom line is you want to raise that in depends on the state  you're welcome to do that you're asking us to dismiss the bankruptcy case to reverse the order of the bankruptcy that value didn't have standing and found there's nothing untoward about filing an involuntary bankruptcy and you're basing it upon your claim that state law wouldn't permit who care what they will have to do with the two is we're looking at whether the code and the trustee have the right to proceed that's all we're concerned about and whether you have the ability to have the case this is not what we're concerned with today well so for today we are concerned number one understanding i agree with that and then number two with the bankruptcy policy issue which goes to the merits so if you'd like me to address the standing issue st time i have to do that well  is is it traceable to the issue that we're challenging and would it be redressed by a favorable decision here we have a concrete and particularized injury in fact in the sense that we are a defendant in a state court last two for fourteen million dollars that could not have been filed but for the bankruptcy and but that that that right to sue you belong to the debt right that is correct if the debt all problems it also could be transferred by the debtor assigned by the debtor to what it could be voluntarily assigned not in voluntarily but i think the filing of the bankruptcy case doesn't cause your injury which is the filing of a lawsuit that's a determination made by the trustee in the chapter sub cases and then well the fact that we are a lawsuit is a defendant in a lawsuit that has been brought by a chapter seven trustee who could not  bring that lawsuit but for the existence of the bankruptcy case means that we have a concrete in particular right injury that is traceable you know it may have many traceable facts right something could be caused by many things so it can it's true that the bankruptcy could have been filed in the trustee could have said no i'm not going to file a lawsuit right that would certainly be true but one factor that is causing our concrete and particularized injury here is the questions right because california state law so let's start with the murphy case right the judgment was entered for an excessive policy limits the plaintiffs in the murphy case that i want the full judgment went to the california supreme court they said no you that that ability to sue the defendant's ability to sue his insurer is something that is assignable to you if you make a voluntary assignment it cannot be  not did not have standing to bring a motion to dismiss this bankruptcy case didn't have constitutional standing didn't have prudential standing they rely almost entirely upon the murray case in  case there was a there was a decision by the bankruptcy court by the district court by the nd circuit and although the murray case went the other way on a set of different facts really it was a motion brought by by the debtor it was not by the target of litigation which is what we have here but murray all three of those decisions say it's within the discretion of the court the bankruptcy court here reviewed all of the factors this isn't merely a recalcitrant debt or this is a really bad debt this is a debtor who ran over this creditor and continued running over him and tried to flee the scene creating a grievous injuries of action but create a bankruptcy specific means of realizing on an asset that wouldn't have real would not have been available otherwise that yes it was already in the the bankruptcy estate your honor it was a  quiet the judge gruber have in murray was bankruptcy is maybe artificially created by dock trial outcome here that wouldn't have been available otherwise that's true your honor but i would also be and you would say that's not true here what's they the debtor could assign a claim to would one could intervene in that litigation in other words the the dismissal the bankruptcy case doesn't necessarily and the ability geisha in state court it just intervention but i would think that the case would automatically be dismissed i'd imagine there would have to be some sort of order to show cause notice to the debtor or about taking it over  but because of the variety of factors that existed in murray the court was found to have discretion within that was within their discretion to determine that dismissal was appropriate marie talked about whether seven o two a was the proper basis to dismiss or whether three o three was the focus and they and they did focus on section seven of two and that was the part that was there that was also affirm d on appeal that that seven o two applies even in involuntary even before an order for relief was entered one of the distinguishing factors here too is the order for relief was entered eighteen months ago was entered april th thousand and nineteen and here we are you know that this is an argument and the bankruptcy judge agreed with it that you know in the interim the insurance company has didn't do anything until recently the trustee was extension to do that we filed a complaint got his discharge denied we filed schedules we had investigate work with the creditor to prepare schedules that was authorized by court orders nobody came in and opposed it even  h the carrier was on notice of every one of these side of each of these steps so there there's also a reliance issue coming in eighteen months later murray was in the involuntary stage before an order for relief no order for relief was entered in that case and to challenge a bankruptcy case this far along by the target of the litigation itself the i think that's a wrongful use of the motion isn't the requirement is that the appellant have an actual or imminent injury in fact it is directly attributable to the bankruptcy filing not the lawsuit so the bankruptcy filing prudential standing is the same thing they say that they don't even need to be a party in interest well nobody should be allowed to come in off the street and challenge a bankruptcy that there  they they have the opportunity if they had a right to file a if they thought they were owed money to file a proof a claim they didn't they're not the debtor the debtor didn't come in here and oppose this bankruptcy filing again the debtor this contingency for our hourly rates that's that's true with respect to the contingency of the recovery in the lawsuit they took to pull the rug out from under us eighteen months later because in the end challenge it's bad faith because you are doing something that shouldn't happen but that better controls the ability to say come in here and wait on that scale and has chosen not to in terms of the the absence let me say that i think there's an interesting point to be made here st of all mister israel says the debtors the scoundrel well the debtor in murray was a scoundrel as well as a debtor and murray that happened to be a well heeled scoundrel who came of the system as a whole and what is a proper use of the bankruptcy code and it's not proper here to use the bankruptcy code but counsel isn't really the language in the future and really that there was one an insurance companies defenses increase their liability that's what gave them standing you don't have any of those circumstances present here well so let me address the wife's point because that point did come up at the bankruptcy court  nothing in the murray decisions either judge gerber's of his decision the district court's decision the nd circuit and then it talks about mister murray's wife who did not appear in the bankruptcy case i think that's frankly speculation as to the idea that judge gerber was really out to protect misess murray but but to go back to my my my point of a nd ago we had a well heeled scoundrel in murray who hired counsel who made an incorrect argument here we have a debtor who is not a well heeled individual good has does not have those resources did not hire counsel did not come in however what do we know about whether he wants this case to proceed we know that he had disobeyed every single court order he has essentially as you might they voted with  proof that you have standing in the case for his argument which is i don't want to go forward i would disagree with that in the sense that i am not relying on him to say i'm standing i'm saying as that basis for distinguishing the murray case what i think that has more to do with is the respective economic postures of mister murray versus mister benet my standing is as articulated which is my client is a defendant in a lawsuit