good morning please the court counsel you know connor appearing for jeffrey brown and for the record mr brown is present today i was driving down town here today i haven't done that in a long time and it struck me that it was kind of unusual if not kind of almost freaky that instead of there being snow and ice on the ground because i grew up in lombard and got my undergrad and law degree here in the state of illinois that it was warming up and so i guess it's fitting that we have this case that's kind of unusual or freaky in a sense in that what occurred to the underlying litigation that we were trying to get before the bankruptcy court to be heard what happened in this case is that mr brown had been basically terminated by united airlines prior to the bankruptcy filing a lawsuit in california alleging a number of things and call including wrongful termination which united airlines immediately removed from the state court to the bankruptcy court in los angeles i'm unclear why it went to los angeles but it went to los angeles and it's there for a couple years and then united airlines confirmed their plan at about the same time though they requested that case this episode seating be transferred to chicago and it and i am a bankruptcy practitioner primarily in arizona and i practiced here in van and i couldn't find the case meaning i could see the adversary in los angeles but i could not find where it went after that but apparently it went to the district court here in chicago and if you look through the of that case it's clear that it was intended to be transferred to the bankruptcy court but that never happened but all of these transfers were the result of united airlines where errors made by the court it's not mr ground that c and so that's why we submit if the bankruptcy court is a court of expertise that mr brown should have an opportunity to have his case heard and that it's unreasonable if not rageous to say no this case counsel my understanding is that sometime during the pendency of the case in california that the firm that was representing him basically went to fuck they broke up and i don't think they ever withdrew but well my understanding is that there may still be counsel of record in that eps are it was bent it has a never withdrew but technically you didn't because my understanding is that firm basically dissolved and nobody substituted so when was he lacking counsel to my knowledge that attorney never with through so he's always had counsel well i mean he didn't have any training talked to but by the court if the court be legal system tolerate delays of such length and reopening a case case becomes ancient history and science well i have i guess i  would bring up a couple points in response to that first off the bankruptcy case of united was opened in reopened i think after we attempted to do it in two thousand and thirteen if you look at the docket it's been open and reopened several times to allow orders to enter or whatever and a look and eleven u s c three fifty allows the court to reopen the case to correct errors or correct if what correct errors are or to make corrections and we were submitting that this indefinitely forever well arguably some way in my opinion i mean i've been in bankruptcy cases of men around twenty years and i can understand how you can have a bankruptcy case that goes on for a long time reorganizing the company and so on but after it's appears to be completed to reopen it many years later well i'm just saying if this adversary hadn't fallen in the cracks so to speak meeting if it had been docketed properly in the bankruptcy court the only way you can get rid of it is by a motion by trial by adjudication or final judgment and that never occurred this case basically vanished off of the radar screen so to speak and there was never a final order whether that was raised by them united or my client there's no fine or so the case was never fully litigated is there any doubt that the california case was filed in violation of the bankruptcy stay i don't believe that one because there was a motion i think raised by united during the pendency of the case regarding stay whether or not they could proceed or i believe i think a motion was filed for relief from state after the fact and that certain things could be heard so i to me it's not a direct violation now ok thank you code which permits it which gives the court discretion to do so quote to administer assets to accord relief for the debtor or for other cause here the bankruptcy court got it right and certainly did not abuse its discretion i would ask the court to focus on two things the first is that there is no real doubt that mr brown's claims against united were discharged section eleven forty one d of the code is very clear that unless provided in the plan of the confirmation order or the code it any debt that arose before the date of confirmation is discharged mr brown mr out o'connor confirmed that this debt what did arise before confirmation he was fired before united filed bankruptcy he prosecuted his case during the bankruptcy he filed a lawsuit in two thousand and four in clear violation of the automatic stay his motion to lift the stay was not granted it's clear that his claims are barred by eleven forty one d and united plan in his reply if mr brown suggests that the plan and confirmation order imply italy permitted him to pursue his case but the plain terms of both documents which are reflected in pages nine forty and forty one and forty four of the record and quoted from at length in my briefs exactly the opposite this court has heard many appeals from united's bankruptcy and has ruled several times including in the region capital case that all creditors are bound to united's plan mr brown is not an exception and that means he loses the second thing is that mr brown had the burden to prove below that he had cause for reopening united was closed to file his motion to reopen that was seven years after confirmation and a dozen years after his determination this court's precedents including the redmen case the b m nucci case and served on make clear that the passage of time weighs heavily against reopening and there's a ton of time that passed here it's also on disputed that mr brown could have proceeded far earlier he had counsel that actually appeared at least twice in the bankruptcy case and there no claim here that he lacked notice at any time he could surely could have proceeded in the bankruptcy court before the case closed and there's no explanation as to why he did not also we know for a fact that mr  separate lawsuits in two thousand and seven in a federal court in arizona prosecco united was never served with those lawsuits we didn't find out about them until after he filed his motion to reopen six years later but why did he do that why did he file a lawsuit in arizona rather than go to the bankruptcy court there's no explanation at all and the reality is that mr brown has no cause other than many years of his and his own counsels in action now miss this is not mr o'connor's  brown yes i think really well i think it depends on who you ask i'm not sure there's evidence of mental illness there was a claim that while he worked for united he had depression though that's so if depression allow a creditor to reopen a bankruptcy case to pursue a long discharge claim if this would have gotten this clearly it was not did not fall through the cracks it was given it is clearly decided by the plain terms of united plan of reorganization of this is a discharge claim the can't proceed you know what when when united filed for bankruptcy in two thousand and two chief then chief judge lead off had just started his second term as a bankruptcy judge in the northern district of illinois and just last month he retired after a long and distinguished career on the bankruptcy bench judge we'd off got this one rights and we would ask that the bankruptcy court and the district court b the only thing that i've seen regarding a discharge or treatment under the plan is general terms pretty much where they talk about collective bargaining and it's not well defined to me if you have an emissary proceeding you must in your plan say what you're going to do with it or that's a case in itself and it continues even if the main case goes away the up to siri can still exist so i don't understand that argument i don't understand the argument either from the standpoint that that if if that were true then why didn't they file in the district court or follow up to say hey there's no case here anymore dismiss it they didn't do that and so it makes no sense and