just that pleading and i think if you step back and look at that action we can avoid so many other things that occurred later on why is that because if the trial court had granted the now an appeal actually would never come in the first place because many of those objections now make the argument that well there's something one time about mr bush as well and when he was granted which was which was  brains we can address it from both angles that from a prejudiced standpoint which is really what the timing should have been focused on there was no we were at the very beginning of the case my client had been given leave yes this was not strictly within the time originally granted but it was very shortly thereafter there's no surprise here because cintra mortgage itself acknowledges that you originally pleading was attempting to do with this when it was seeking well right but he doesn't have to give you leave to file defective pleading was designated to collect under the mortgage agreement and the note says that the original bank has the money so i mean there's some peace love it says murph and i have closure and action but i think you're here amanda hanson was on the right track and thirteen g n r is mandatory in the supreme court's make clear that striking the evidence or testimony from any such violation is the appropriate remedy which is what we asked for before the trial or just siegel overruled that objection and did are i don't believe it because my argument isn't that the sending of a central mortgage was the proper rather and again the record doesn't reflect at what point the central mortgage company took over certain know yes mr bush that reactions were consolidated but they didn't merge on consolidation when he says merge with the consolidated results a single loss and whereby individual identity suits evaporates  and i just like to point out that councils explanation are intended explanation as to why the orders from count one of it's you action are in his words before this for a review it's logically inconsistent and must fail the merely because under counsel's argument they can potentially impact each other on the very notion of race your current lateral stoppel isn't premised on the notion that a ruling in one action a final ruling on the merits and potentially impact other similar types of future litigation so here defendant was precluded from raising the fuel issues in this case when just siegel denied the motion to a man facing that defendant voluntarily went out and raised the same issues never lost when he did that he the possibility that the orders from the foreclosure action if final and on the merits could potentially impact relief orders available in the severance you laugh but merely because that's the case doesn't mean that the separates you look orders are procedural in his opening statement but i do believe it's significant here that defendant propounded discovery we answered that summary judgment the defendant didn't bring a motion to compel didn't bring a motion for any ruling on our objections to various discover them about their knowledge or their ability to lay the foundation for the business records then he could have done so i don't know that these aren't certain occurrence witnesses in the sense that they have some special knowledge about this case that other employees a train that takes them and wants the proceeding starts boy it's it's hard to stop it you you can hear the complaint in this case yesterday and you told me that the note was maybe i'm missing a peach but what does the blank indorsement look like when they simply attach a copy of the note to the complaint that makes the kind of a showing and that further a blank indorsement on a no would convert the instruments of their paper which would again further establish that this band the plaintiff had some old at the time he was asking the men and importantly at the hearing for the motion for leave to file the amended pleading counsel acknowledge that they couldn't explain they had no response to why the defendant didn't timely file the defense  both the translation from the source documents the books to the key punch card and in the processing the computer itself in fact in grand letter the tax auditor lane foundation the computer printout immediately he didn't know what information was fed into the computer responses were attached because we were providing them as evidence to the court in mind but i think it's important look at the timing here this motion for summary judgment was presented to the court right after we received the discovery responses so es and the witnesses declare in affidavits that all their testimony relied on business records when clearly some of the testimony for instance the stuff about the computer lab building software there are no documents attached to this motion that relates to that seeking this information so we needed them to supplement their response and was it just a matter of tell us the name there also now as a matter of the subject matter that these people were supposedly aware of in the documentation that they're relying on that is tax for the most we bring all of this to just seals attention at the here but again i think it was lost on a track record of how sequential these things happen all of this happened within a couple of weeks so there was not time for a separate motion to compel it's the first brick because without the consolidation there would be this question would be here at all but the consolidation leaves the first bridge the reason why i think we get all the way to having this year this court  complete so the dispute over the mortgage was not complete once since your mortgage obtain a summary judgment nappa just you know the mortgage was complete which included is the situation that my client was not entitled to res validated the mortgage that myth that my client's request to invalidate or going to more is because of the position was goes along with the discordian i think it would put us in a very different difficult position if that's not the case darkness and let me just make sure that's clear because of judge siegel ruling refusing to permit back earlier amended pleading the team of planes were the counterclaims of that made me so i think even if this