case i think it lays out pretty simply and straightforwardly what the issues and proper resolution of this appeal are and in regard to the first issue which is really application of the one form of action rule this is a direct result of clear statutory language under california law yes but the other case was not a case against you for a closure or for anything in fact it was except for essentially and i get clear ation of priority of lanes just doesn't seem to have anything to do with what the one action  somebody else as to whether he had which lien was had a priority your honor i suggestion or the other issue i suggest you go to the other issue the issue of did over issue for review and this court and it was a clear that you are now saying there was a settlement in the complaint and nothing in the complaint that indicates there was a settlement this was in the in the this is the  i understand there's nothing in the complaint in this case that says there was a settlement of the earlier cases were asked and when you said that the district judge said ok amend the complaint just say that a you know you didn't do it what was it was there a settlement on the schubert the the last the schubert lawsuit the number the fifth one you filed which would have been the two thousand and thirteen yes in that case there was a an apology issued not not stated in the complaint in this section coun and there was there was a dismissal with prejudice but there was nothing to indicate that it was dismissed pursuant to a settlement is that correct well the the underlying facts of the case do where is sent in the complaint in this case don't know the complaint in front of me at the moment but it's my understanding is that you were given an opportunity to amend the complaint just so alleging you didn't do it i mean it's not a bad good argument if it's true but it's not  there and this is my and so this is my question and it appears that from this complaint that this was all an equity line of credit is it your contention that because of a prior clear record judgment action relating to priorities which was not a claim against your client for money that your client gets to avoid any repayment what is what your client has borrowed on the line of credit actually would be ok to be removed so you in other words if i'm understanding this and please correct me if i'm wrong you're saying there would no longer be security for the loan but they c still make a claim for money risk a contract claim for the money then won't that is correct here thank you and i'll reserve  of mcguire woods for the appellee there are two issues presented obviously one is the application of the one action rule the other is the application of race judicata i think we've addressed both of them thoroughly in our brief i understand from the court's questions this morning that the court is not inclined to accept appellants arguments that the one action rule was  invoked we believe that it's correct this was not an action to collect the debt it wasn't an action for enforcement of the security interest and certainly simply the filing of an action has never been held by any california to invoke the one action rule you must go much farther down the line and take some affirmative action so even if the argument which i don't think the court is accepting is correct that simply filing declaratory relief action invoke the rule the california case law is clear that you have to do something that prejudice is the other side you either have to go to judgment or you have to do something short of any of the issues that are raised here wasn't raised in the open what was the plaintiff's interest in the other case and what was the prejudice about well what happened was that and this is explained in our papers in a prior it was just a question of the prior holy instant or if so what was the interest of the plaintiff in the interest would be that whether or not the security interest which had been recorded during the time of an interest but no no relief no coercive result and this is the one thing that concerns me about the claim this is this was in fact an equity line of credit is that right correct and so one piece of what the plaintiff says although he doesn't say in the complaint about what happened earlier you know sort of sounds right which is that because it was an equity  remains open but i believe his position was that since he had paid it off there was nothing to enforce and he was all right but what that means is that the fact that the earlier claim ended the earlier case ended with a with prejudice determination that the lien was going to stay there doesn't prove anything about whether he owns money or doesn't owe money that's correct therefore you shouldn't have any claim preclusion on that question i apologize i understand him but he says i understand extra record but you agree it's correct that in any and and his his quiet title action that he would have lost entirely because it was an equity line of credit without regard to whether he owed any money or not but the issue of whether he owed his money was put in issue and schuster five he claimed that that lien should be issue became race judicata what way did you take that position when that when the dismissal with prejudice was filed and you was there an answer that said that was there any litigation over it was there a settlement there no yes there was a settlement and did that settlement discuss what the relief was whether it was the removal of the lien or whether it was that there was a decision that he didn't owe money or was  well the settlement is not in the record that's the settlement that mr schuester was given leave to a man to put in front of the district court mr shoes correct but we have to look at that in order to decide what was litigated into five before we decide whether it was already litigated i don't think you do need to decide that what was litigated in schuster five according to california law was whether or not he owed understanding why it's pretty close of on the question of whether he owed money because he put that question he sought to remove the lien on the basis that he owed no money ok that was his argument and when he dismissed the argument meaning him because it his pleading and he then dismisses that pleading with prejudice so it's a question of what's in their complaint something that's just never got to control the case you know it has nothing to do with the outcome he puts it in there but it but in fact both by his assertion of what he was told even though he did put it in the complaint and your agreement as to what the law is it didn't matter it was irrelevant but it does matter because when he came back in the which had to do with a specific person having said a specific thing so that can't be a claim preclusion here because that that has nothing to do with what went on here or he doesn't you didn't he didn't renew his slander of rightfully so it's just a quiet title and quiet it my client will still be in the same position with no because he that doesn't give him the right to for clones but he he's already argued that there is no valid lien on the property because he did not owe me i understand that and that seems to be incorrect because of the equity line of credit but that doesn't lead to the conclusion that your client can for close because he still has to show you money he does have to  foreclosed i understand i just cited but i'm trying to understand why given the fact that this was an equity line of credit because when what happened was when mr schuester argued now in the district court case that he didn't owe any money the district court said are you taking the position you don't owe any money because of what happened at or before the time of schuster five where you claim you don't owe any money because of what happened since the time of schuster five if the say and sippin far closer are threatened from closure i don't know if there was a i thought it was just about the lien it was a slander of title quite a title and as i recall it was manner of kind of a somebody said he had money but the second part to quiet title because of what happened since schuster five or before if the answer is before you're precluded from arguing that ok if i must there's the court of any questions on the race judicata issue says that it was paid off and then the interest was extinguished so it's sort of you can't even tell it's the same alone here because it's fact it wasn't a mortgage loan as such a mill is an equity line of so it's confusing but i don't i absolutely cannot apparently there was a settlement and apparently for some reason he refused to amend the complaint to put it in may because it doesn't help you i don't know  complaint and then you dismiss a complaint with prejudice then that that's a final judgment on the man it's well we take the position that it was not  hardship exception that set forth and f f the cases in the brief where representations of the bank led the party to believe that the there was