case so under the supreme court's pronouncements in taylor there cannot be adequate representation as the supreme court now defines adequate representation for the taylor decision i'm confused frankly about the but lation ship between the parties because right now you know the plaintiff in this action is liberty city movie l l c suing us bank isn't that the same and indeed that was found in the arbitration to have committed fraud in the escrow involving the bank you're correct  it if it's treated as the same entity i would think you'd have significant problems on the merits well it was it was found to be liable if you later on in pursuit of that right that's right so then we need to look at who controls the british city and not just at the at the overall you know shell of liberty city we need to look at who controls it and then it seems you to be a different member do seti from before are found in the arbitration and that's because different people control that well then maybe we need to look at those people control that and those people don't they have transaction and it's the nd time that were an appeal to this court in relation to the same this is precisely the type of never ending litigation that the supreme court had in mind when it authorized the extension of the rest of the kind of doctrine to non of their complaint which is in the excerpts at page you are one of one and the appellants have similarly confirmed that same understanding in their own pleadings paragraph fourteen sorry a paragraph eight hundred and eighteen of their original amended complaint in the central district where they pleaded that stereoscope in the st wast who was acting as the managing member of the appellate cutting edge stereoscope motion pictures all see which was in turn a member of the a banks for not following stereoscopes instructions and instead following the instructions of the authorized escrow party representatives and that's precisely what this lawsuit seeks to do although they have joined and asked for already to this lawsuit the grob amount of this  lawsuit is not hey you british to duty that was of to be account liberty city movie or you don't follow your instructions there complaint in this lawsuit is still a pay why did you follow liberty city movies instructions you should have all of those rd party instructions they're seeking to vindicate the exact same rights on behalf of the stereoscope plaintiffs the interests are one hundred percent aligned and the reason we have adequate representation in this case by virtue of the relationship between so that there are at least three nonparty claim preclusion relationships in this case that were recognized by taylor one of those three is adequate representation and we have adequate representation for two reasons number one is in addition to an ali interests with stereoscopes interests stereoscope was acting in a representative capacity to the supreme court and taylor noted that those are the two factors required to create adequate representation we also have adequate representation for an equally compelling and alternative reason for this court's dismissal of the related stereoscope action the individual stereoscope plaintiffs when cronkite and david kessel acquired control of and reinstated the corporate status of the  for the sole purpose of reality dating the stereoscope claims the supreme court in the heart steel vs railroad supply company case that we cite held that ownership in control demonstrates an alignment of interest and adequate representation sufficient to invoke privity and that case remains good law although it predates taylor it wasn't overruled the th circuit consistently both before and since taylor regularly holds that ownership and control is precisely the type of relationship that demonstrates adequate representation under the taylor analysis we set several examples from the th circuit where it has held that to be the case including for  regardless of when that relationship arose is a category of non party claim preclusion that establishes pretty for the purposes of arrested a kind of analysis in fact the taylor court itself in re mandating to the district court circuit to look at whether the plaintiff in a nd floor in a lawsuit was acting as the agent of the plaintiff in a st for a lawsuit because the record unlike in our case wasn't clear the taylor court as an example of that type of agency relationship cited the us supreme court's montana vs united states decision in which it was held that a u s government contractor was an aged and therefore subject to the nonparty claim preclusion proxy mar decision the tailor and u s supreme court itself noted that it was of no consequence that the united states happen to be a party to the nd litigation and if the united states had been a party to the st litigation and w are trying to regulate it it the claims through egypt its government contractor in that case the same agency in proxy litigation analysis would apply the night circuit in the a t l court versus city of seattle case that we say specifically h that ownership and control precluded a prior individual liggett from really getting claims that were previously litigated by the individual through a corporation that he owned and controlled in fact o litigate in their own name managing member there's two alternative equally compelling relationships that exist between the plaintiffs in this case i don't think the fact that being gauged in four brigades have been shipped in order to resuscitate defunct entities to really get previously disposed of it your honor i would submit that the difference in the legal claims doesn't make a difference on the rest of the kind of doctor and they're still trying to hold us back responsible for following the instructions of someone other than an escrow party and your honor is correct that are at issue in this dispute and it did so by fraudulently presenting us bank with one set of escrow instructions was sharing an alternative set of escrow instructions with the stereoscope plaintiff's i think this is precisely the type of situation in which the supreme court sanctioned the extension of both the restroom a kind of doctrine and a situation where alternatively issue preclusion applies based on eight years of litigation regarding the same underlying transaction  you know in terms of the taylor factors i do want to make one point which is you know the alignment of the interests of the parties the interests are aligned people are trying to vindicate the same legal rights in both cases on behalf of mr splint cronkite and mr david because there's no dispute about that number two aside from the alignment of interest the supreme court allows us to look at the proxy litigation exception and this is this is a situation where the s plaintiffs quick cronkite and david castle are seeking to relate it claims through a proxy shouldn't be able to obtain from the back door through this litigation what they couldn't from the front door in the liberty city movie sorry in the stereoscope litigation because u bank owes no duty other than to comply with us from party instructions and no one is saying that we didn't comply with this for party instructions i do want to touch on the statute of limitations as well you know opponents argued in the district court courts local rules right there why didn't you why didn't you then there that it doesn't waive defenses that it wouldn't have had in the ohio who are we supposed to read that as as excluding defenses that would have existed in the ohio court i think the way to read that order is to read i think the plain language of the order basically says that we waive the statute of limitations if they refile quote this action in the central district of california within ninety days they chose from i'll let you know the action is do you concede that the effect of that order is to limited the waiver to that action we weren't waiving the statute of limitations with respect to other actions for which the statute of limitations had run a long time ago even the all io saving statute case law that the appellate cite in support of their advocacy for a broader definition of the term action imposes a limitation it says that if the nd lawsuit involves claims that were barred at the time the st lawsuit was filed then the statute of limitations nevertheless bars of those claims in the saving statute action broadly what the savings statute applies to told the ohio statute of limitations for a period of one year if there is a non substan conspiracy claim time barred in the ohio suit while i was pending in ohio the district court seemed to think so what so i think that the district court gave them the benefit of the doubt the challenge with the statute of limitations argument on the conspiracy claim  that conspiracy claims are subject to the statute of limitations of the underlying tort the problem is they didn't allege any underlying tort in ohio and the district court in this case noted that they similarly have not sufficiently alleged an underlying tor in california so there's really no way to measure the statute of limitations on the conspiracy claim in ohio because it was insufficiently stated we would submit that because they did not refile the same lawsuit the waiver doesn't apply the waiver applied with no right to me and that's because they were not the same as the plaintiffs there and that i ask you the same question about the conspiracy statue imitation as a district court said it appears to be undisputed that at the time plaintiff filed the ohio complaint the are higher statute of limitations had already run on the unlawful conspiracy claim were right in saying that i think he's wrong in slime because i think it was perry and signs of a statute of limitations and they signed it and i think their stuff is there because and action includes all theories of