may please the court i'm lawrence put off i'm here representing myself and i suggest to the court that there are two simple reasons for my motion to vacate the sanctions award that was assessed the  is that the reason for the disposition of the case itself the dismissal was based on an impasse in incorrect facts and the nd of course is that questions of st impression for the connecticut courts and raised by the issues that were that were the federal procedure to state court or the appeal of the state court decision because there was no financial ability to do so for me or my client but the bottom line is there is no possible way on earth that this that mr less comes case and the proceeding case have the same core issues involved the same core issues and the reading of the mr to lesko has complained specifically states the breaches of contractor after the jury exonerated him from any fraud all of which by the way all of the trodden breach of contract were with the exception of one item that the the defendant put in evidence were agreed to have been performed by mr to lascaux so whether or not he had an any duty or obligation to bring an action himself when the named insured brought the action for all of the parties is a separate question but the bottom line is that a two year statute in the policy for bringing claims for the loss has absolutely no relevance to a breach of contract claim the insurance contract includes implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and the breaches that are alleged are breaches that occurred after that jury exonerated mr to connecticut unfair insurance act those claims generally always include a couple one hundred connecticut's unfair trade practices act and that's because it's a tort claim that's specifically alleges breach of contract so the question really and clearly there's a six year statute contracts whether or not the to the well the two year statute in the policy for bringing actions deals with the claims under the policy it does not deal with violations of connecticut law which the policy could not exempt from responsible for your  objects to a motion to reinstate and then claims that there's no basis for the case at all that could have been done in the superior court and it could have been done at a cost of considerably less than twenty eight thousand dollars i believe the limit would have been something like a couple of one hundred dollars but this is typical form shopping to claim to object to the case being remanded claim that has no basis and then ask for twenty thousand dollars and part of that is to shopping has nothing to do with whether or not it's a compulsory counterclaim or not why not compulsory well i understand that and i apologize for that that that's a federal rule ok it's not i don't believe it's a compulsory counterclaim because it didn't arise by its very terms and mr to less goes complained until after the jury verdict and that's why i say to you there was no basis for the dismissal of your client successful i could not contest the fact that the statute in the policy would have prevented damages for that one aspect but i suggest also that it still could be a breach of contract what the damages may be is a totally different question and that would depend entirely on the language in the policy and the evidence that's presented so we did make mr didn't make a claim under the policy which is what the court file dismissed the case which is what the defendant claves with i guess it's to the defendant's brief the issues are entirely the same or the same issues they're definitely not the issues in the mrs that case was payment under the contract under the insurance contract for the losses that's not what telescope brought he specifically alleged all of his claims and after the jury exonerated him now whether or not there's a statute of limitations that applies to that certainly the two year statute to collect for his los i please the court my name is rhonda tobin and i represent the apple a fireman's fund insurance company before i get into my argument just to touch on the last points made by my adversary an appendix page  processing his claim and in again and not paying his claim so counsel is now trying to argue despite the allegations that he brought the half of mr to lefkow that this is somehow different because plaintiff didn't bring a claim the breach of contract allegation is for not paying his insurance claim to get back to my argument the question before this court is whether the district court abused its discretion in opposing will love and sanctions it's our position that the court correctly found that attorney part of violated rule eleven a and filing a motion to remain and the case one federal jurisdiction was clear and there was no  i don't believe that under the federal rules that the future sticks in your honor the argument was twofold one that we do business in connecticut and therefore we're subject to the jurisdiction of connecticut courts which we never disputed and to that on occasion we have filed lawsuits in connecticut but there was no argument either that there was a lack of diversity or that the amount of controversy didn't exceed seventy five thousand dollars i think there was an argument in one brief at one point but  appendix page six in the mr to left goes complaint paragraph nine he specifically alleges that the part of the personal property that was damaged that was used by the plaintiffs was seven hundred and ninety thousand dollars in change so there could be and judge as intent recognized that provision of the contract and holding that there was clearly federal court diversity jurisdiction with respect to the sanction for filing of the complaint the corps correctly recognizes that the mr to lascaux was brought in by my client as a party to would be to mrs peck girls action and to the extent he had complaints about the same exact claim for the same exact fire loss and for the same exact property that was being claimed by mrs toll pentonville where that fire loss that it was a compulsory counterclaim under rule thirteen and that he  up that claim by not bringing it within that perceiving and the argument that this is wholly different because the jury made for certain findings is belied by the actual facts of the underlying complaint which the other lying action which this court affirmed the jury verdict of mills case the allegations are identical in this case in terms of what the plaintiff is seeking by way of damages the court also in addition to finding that it was a role thirteen compulsorily compares compulsory counterclaim also noted that two years limitation with all due respect my adversary is incorrect as to the statute of limitations issue kinetic of course are very clear that that to your suit limitation is the  couple limitation it does apply not only to a breach of contract claim but also to any claims for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing which is dependent on the existence of the contract in this case the suit was filed six years after the denial so there's no question that the two your suit limitation was violated the court also found with respect to the quip a claim that was brought that it was identical to acquit a claim that the corps had dismissed and mrs patton killed case because it was legally insufficient and the same exact allegation was again brought by mr telasco pretty much cut and paste a yes by the three year statute of limitations like what a creep so obviously this court when abuse of discretion standard is a highly deferential standard and that is because the district court is more familiar with both the issues and the li this case in terms of denying the motion or remand granting the motion to dismiss the complaint and then the sanctions that followed so our position that attorney part of has not come forward to this court and pointing to any erroneous view of the law and the erroneous assessment of the evidence or any suggestion that the decision was not within the range of permissible decisions all of which meet the definition of abuse of discretion counsel concedes that he is the appropriate person to receive the sanction he prefers that he acknowledged that before judge and didn't and to the extent the court the district court was inclined to and pose a sanction it was rightly against him for having brought the underlying pleadings and the subsequent pleadings and secondly i know that the the decisions from this court have noted that the standard is an objective and reasonable snus standard it's not based on the subjective beliefs of attorney par not turning point in his brief before this court that there was a failure of the district court to consider his mental state and his intent statement finally the district court found that the complaint and motion to remount were objective leon reasonable and that rule leavens purpose to deter frivolous and harassing litigation would be as would be served by imposing the sanctions and the court found there was no colorable argument to justify the filing of the complaint or the filing of the motion to remount it's our position in addition that part this appeal itself is frivolous because there is no argument other than the ones that were presented to the court below for any colorable argument that the  based on the facts or the law that a different outcome should should should be decided by this court the district court decisively rejected the claims and there are no new legal or factual bases provided to this court for reversing that decision given the significant additional expense to my client from having to raise this appeal and prepare before this court if this court agrees that the appeal itself is frivolous fireman's fund would respectfully request its cost under federal appellate procedure thirty eight for having to defend this appeal thank you there is no claims of law or facts to support this this motion well of course if in fact the dismissal was improper because he claimed that the two cases were the same and it was no basis for the paragraph i guess i'm page eleven or twelve of the of the defendant's brief and point out that it's nearly six years that the nd case was brought not six nearly six years and that's that's important because that does establish a breach of contract claim cut deals with a three year statute of limitations from the date of the last the date of the occurrence i understand that but that's a separate issue that doesn't deal with dismissing the entire slate for a wrong reason for a wrong basis and the question of whether i acted reasonable or not deals with the question of whether or not an attorney in connecticut under connecticut practice and the connecticut rules court i refer to three point one in my brief were specifically allowed to bring an action for the purpose of testing precedent getting the court to reverse itself or getting it to expand decisions this particular case you think i hadn't finished your thought was directed specifically at that and it's different than what the st case was thank you thank you and we will take the matter under advisement that's the last case to be argued this morning so i asked the clerk to a