be especially if we look at the fact that the trial court completely failed to address a number of the pronk that are required in the bateman analysis there are four prongs and to be quite frank  as i look at the record that i looked at it seems to me that the trial court was fundamentally irritated with the plaintiff in the case and expressed that irritation  some length in its order denying the motion for relief but i don't see the level of the court's irritation with the plaintiff as being a ground for denying relief when the court failed to look at the other factors and set forth its analysis as to why the other factors didn't weigh in on this and one of the factors in the basement analysis is prejudice to the plaintiff in this particular case and the fact that no relief was granted is very prejudicial can i ask you this if as i understand it there the district or then went on to resolve basically on the merits of the mercians to dismiss while the other defendant correct if we ended up agreeing that that really was correct would it basically obviate any need to resolve this issue with respect that you just raised i don't think so well when i see left for the district court to do on remount if we said yes cube use your court to take in light of the subsequent decision by the california supreme court i think that that has changed the analysis on the merits and that's why i started with the proposition that you will you take a look at the sixty be on abuse of discretion but the colleagues to move off that position and i don't know where they are but that's where i'm at i'm just trying to figure out is there something else that we do need to decide on no i don't think you're over at that point because the fact of the  that correctly is that the court opened the door in a place where the door had never been opened and i think that the standing argument is the lynchpin of all of the orders underlying in this case i mean there are seven underlyin order six on the merits a sensually one on the motion for relief and in one of the orders of the court he even goes so far as to say that the analysis of all the causes of action is based on th an argument about standing and the core in one of the orders quotes a language saying that we don't believe that the california supreme court if and when they ever take up this issue will agree with  glasgow line of thought well they were wrong about that because the california supreme court did essentially agree with very narrow issue that is it seems to me the court explicitly left open about three or four other issues that you would need to succeed on to go forward here and i don't but that's the point i think your honor the court took great pains i think in the of on of the decision to say this is the extremely narrow ruling that we make we do not most new law is made of but it seems to me that when the california supreme court takes great pains to lay out that which is not addressed it is saying implicitly  that it is leaving those matters open to be addressed right and that's exactly what's happening in this case and i think many others like it because if you look at this against the backdrop what happens is you have  you know governmental sanctions governmental fines being levied against these banks you have consent to creese being issued but the relief for the individual homeowners who were placed behind the eight ball by this kind of conduct has been very limited and largely it had been because there was no standing to address this can i ask you another question just in terms of the scope of the argument or you can see that every single one of your clients claims turn on his having standing to challenge the i guess the violation of the terms of the p s a no i think that certain of the claims would exist independent of that in particularly in particular my view is that the rico claim would exist independent of that why is because if you're alleging that the fundamental conspiracy is to set up a system so that the individual homeowners have no standing to challenge what's happening and that essentially the way that this is operating is to deprive the individual homeowners of any sort of day in court and that the only thing that can happen is some sort of governmental regular involvement on the finer penalty basis then i think that the certain of the claims under under law and the p s a and others besides the rico claim or i think the consumer the consumer recourse laws would have the same fundamental promise and mean the california courts have ruled repeatedly that reads of the consumer laws in california is extraordinarily broad and it's intended specifically to protect individual consumers and i think what we have here are banks undertaking a successive line of assignments such that issues and by the way i would say that if the court finds that there was at least room for the plaintiff to argue standing in this particular case all of the causes of action remain open and but that certain of the causes of action exist independent of the standing argument and with the court's permission i'd like to reserve my remaining time for rebuttal thank you thank you  any time as the court finds necessary for the court to address questions of the other out police that are specific to them but i do agree with you judge wofford that the threshold issue here is the standing issue and i think judge wright was correct space in the case with prejudice that everything rises and falls on this issue of whether or not the borrower has standing to challenge the validity of the assignment because all of the claims effectively are premised on that so you said that the open door was opened by the california supreme court in the even of a case but that's actually not the case and judge wofford you noted that was a very narrow decision the california supreme court in that case to pains to carefully say that it is holding was a narrow one and that its holding was limited to the post foreclosure sale context it expressly disclaimed reaching the issue of whether or not this narrow standing exception applied in the preferred closure sale context which is the context we're dealing with here and it actually you know was careful to say its holdings should not be taken to suggest that it applies in the  that it would be void that's correct at the first when a complaint alleges that the trust in question was formed under delaware law and there is a an allegation in the in the complaint that this post closing transfer to that delaware trust was void ratify a defective corporate act even if that were a voice in the fact of quarterbacks so the delaware legislature saw fit to actually allow the correction of so called foot faults even if they you know on their face would render the transaction or assignment void so there's actually greater latitude in delaware on this point but there's also this threshold there's so many other points so sorry as on many other point as on many other points and the the context and there's a good reason for that the court cited to jenkins excuse me and also to gomez for the proposition that allowing a preemptive pre foreclosure challenge as mr don that would certainly upset one of the key purposes of that regime which is to allow for the quick and efficient and and and cost effective resolution foreclosures  the irony of course in this case is that it's not the poster child for that rationale because as mr vantine concedes he's been in default on his note and mortgage since two thousand and eight so you know here we are ten years later but  the i think it underscores the need for clarity on this point and saddleback is controlling authority in the intermediate appellate court level for this point i would also just note that the california supreme july of two thousand and sixteen the california supreme court declined to review that decision and declined to do publish the opinion so i would submit that you know the tea leaves suggests that the california supreme court does not wish to disturb that holding that the california supreme court countenances that holding and that's the controlling decision a law that this court needs to look to under the ninth circuit's test and reiman for applying state law in the absence of any clear view on this from the california supreme court it would work to the intermediate appellate court and here we have souter back so i think on both counts there is absolutely nothing set forth  legal argument or authority or otherwise that under delaware law this transaction be void as opposed to void a will but even more fundamentally this whole framework doesn't apply in the context of a p foreclosure sale standing issue which involves the validity of the assignment well let's take a look at their reply brief if you look at page fifteen john we goes through the predicate for the rico claims and each of them is an a b c indian pages fifteen and sixteen each of these refers to the allegedly fraudulent or defective assignment so we have the discussion section and the modification trial and trial payments on avoid note in deed of trust in section b we have a discussion of a forged assignment in section c we have reference to the fact that the deed of trust had not been duly signed and section d we have reference to a counterfeited assignment these are premised on the very thing that lies a threshold here which is whether john we had so much as has standing to challenge the validity of that assignment and we would respectfully submit that he simply does not and if he does not have that standing then all of his claims fall away what about the f a claim actually lies but i would just say i mean i think it is premised on the assignment to the extent that the whole point is that the foreclosing entity and the servers service or didn't have any authority to collect on the debt because they were never properly twenty fourteen order i don't see where the trial court judge applied these so called bait men or the pioneer factors other than the fourth factor with regard to whether or not the movement acted in good faith and in the trial court appeared to be not believing in the reasons offered by the plaintiff but didn't really apply any of the other factors that i can see what's the significance if any of that well i think is judge wofford pointed out earlier you know even if there was an abuse of discretion and you know that's obviously a difficult standard here and all events but even if there was an abuse of discretion it wouldn't matter because on the m consumer services under the act so that's part of our claim that stands separately apart your honor specifically asked about the f t c p a a claim and there are the first man a complaint alleges that respondents were attempting to collect wonts under false pretenses that but not on that turns on whether the fine balance right i think it does but then we come back to the fact and delaware law notwithstanding this is a california consumer entering into contracts in california and if you look at civil code section thirty four twelve and i understand that there are twenty eight j letter took a position that this that the contract was not void necessarily and that you vonnegut had nothing to do with void a bowl contract that only had to do with void contracts but if you look at civil code section thirty four twelve it says a written instrument and then goes on to say where there's an apprehension  if left outstanding may cause serious injury to a person against whom it is void or void a bowl may appoint his application be so we're judged and ordered to be delivered up or canceled so i think that in this particular case whether the instruments void or voidable it doesn't matter under the statutory construct in california for setting aside the kind of instrument that we have here documents that are being robo signing and then  somebody who has a no i there was no person before them presenting identification or known to them the documents were being signed by a robot so it is exactly this kind of case that vonnegut left the door open for if they had wanted to keep the remainder of the door shut they would have slammed it in my opinion but they did not do that they specifically said we do not reach these and the pla and in this case would like the opportunity in the lower court to make those arguments and reach that which the california supreme court did not decide thank you thank you