are the alter egos of one another in order to corporate veil with james rock the rough management of bankruptcy and rock construction defunct this book a this is only hope of ever realizing a significant part of her judgment to follow california law in forcing the judgment what does this in some mean i guess you know i've read it i don't know how many times and i'm still trying to figure out what it means it means that each of the three entities or persons named is an alter ego of each of the other one  now appear in the text of the judgment i'm not mistaken the superior court judge was pretty clear about joint several liability yes that's exactly right the judgment states the joint several liability of the of the different defendants i joined several liability is not the same thing as i understand liability joint several liability is when two different entities so let me ask you this who are you who are you trying to hold court to amend the judgement to add corporate alter ego whatever it was you were the motion specifically provided for there's nothing in the motion about reverse corporate construction and rock management but between james roth and the two corporations that's reverse court corporate bill pearson and you're right that is not a very good but again a court later court a different court is not allowed to look beyond the face of the judgment if you want your job but when you're in the world of judicata or collateral estoppel we can look back to see what was actually decided it's pretty clear no i think t in hernandez there was a federal judgment on a civil rights claim and then the plaintiff came and brought another suit in state court for wrongful death for negligence and the question before the california supreme court was did the did the federal court decide the issues of fact that relate to wrongful death or negligence and and you couldn't tell that from just from the verdict that was in the federal court that was an ambiguity that was an omission and that for that's a situation where you have to go back and look at what happened outside the judgment in the prior prior instance but there are judge general cases very clear here when you have a situation where on the face of the judgment right or wrong like it or not there is something there that says what was decided you cannot go back and look and you cannot change it on the basis of what was decided what was happened before the judgment was entered that's the  air general rule is very clear about this and that's that's that's why when we do not have an ambiguous judgment in this is not ambiguous there's no recourse to the earlier record and he had recourse to earlier records you can't very what is written  that's the whole point here so in in hernandez because i was the california supreme court's language that says that for purposes of collateral estop an issue was actually litigated in a prior proceeding if it was properly re submitted for determination and determined in the proceeding and considering whether these criteria have been met courts look carefully to the entire record from the prior proceeding including the big really what they're after is reversed court reversed corporate veil piercing and you that doctrine is not recognized in california law so you can't read it that way well then where did it where did you ever get the concept and say it should be enforced according to its actual words and the district court was right this this judgment is not a bit which you can only read it one way mr court was wrong that it had to leave to go back and and review it is the the morning writers jeff gardere on behalf of fairmount i think here the questions that have been asked are on the on point and the first of all whether or not you do see that the judgment is ambiguous on its face that the court has the right to go back and take a look to make sure that they are filling the intention of the court when they executed the judges so what's ambiguous about the court finds that james rock rock construction rock management are the alter ego of one another meaning that each one is responsible for the other so i think that's reading into it first of all your letter to conclude that well because it says are the alt ego of one another that term is vague in and of itself the term one another but i think to read the judgment you have to read the entirety of the judge and if you look at the top portion of the judgment which you addressed earlier you will see that as against james roth individually and as five point six ten million dollars as a judgment against him there is no mention of our mc which is rock management corporation or r judgment but i don't see if it's if there is this alter ego the claim of movements or opponents is that oh well the paragraph came later but that isn't what one would see when they read the judgment they would look and they'd say wait or stand i see that roth management corporation is has a judgment against it for two hundred eighty thousand dollars but i don't see anything else in here that indicates that the person or the entity that is rewriting this is  that's rewriting the judgment the judgment the top issues what the amount of money was to each if you have if you cannot go by that then you have to read this paragraph and you have to ferret out what would be owed in the judgment and i don't believe that's what you should be reading you cannot just pick out a phrase or a sentence and then say there you go you need to read the judgment in its entirety and i don't know how you can read this judgment it's inserted in what's the advantage of this sentence what is the advantage to feel here understand your well what does it do for her for her yeah well i don't think it does anything for her but if but very claim the appellant's claim that what it does is it means that ross management corp now owes a judgment of four point two million because there were peels and the number is changed now it was a judgment of four point two million whereas they only owed a judgment based on the numbers here of two hundred eighty thousand dollars so it has a dramatic impact on the bankruptcy of rock management corp because of the size of her creditors claim that's what it does for her but i don't know how you can read it in a vacuum and take one phrase out and say well there you go when you have to review judgment as a whole i also agree with the court's questions regarding what the district court did the district court made it clear that it was not rewriting the judgment that it was simply trying to determine the intent of it and that it had that right under the hernandez decision and so it was the position of the district court while they said well we don't really see the ambiguity we believe that we should be able to go back or we do have the right to go back in verify what the intent was with regard to the bankruptcy court they did find an ambiguity to be honest is just poor drafting yes and hernandez addresses that by the way where it where it makes the point and the district court said here the proposed order was drafted by successful coun and successful counsel seeks to radically expand the judgment to include a broader definition of corporate veil than currently recognized in california it would incentivize intentionally sloppy overbroad are legally unsupported drafting a proposed orders responsible for the deaths of rock construction corp and he is clearly is and it says it in the top of the judgment where it says on the two hundred eighty thousand it says as against defendants james roth roth management roth construction except two hundred eighty thousand dollars it says that as against james roth and roth construction jointly and severally two hundred forty two thousand dollars but that isn't what opponents ar point out just lastly that there was no discussion of the single enterprise theory which is what appellants or attending argue as between roth management corporation corporation and ro construction there was absolutely no mention of that the case a la palma us which is the famous case in california that that fight found first found single enterprise theory it was mentioned but not for the same in if not ambiguous as the just record said they had the right to go behind and make sure that the intention of the judgment was carried out thank you ok no there was a few john first in response to a question that was posed just a minute ago as to who drafted the final judgement i course i wasn't involved in the trial court but nobody has been able to everything i've learned from the great and  that if you were the one who decided it that's not the issue the only issue is what was decided and if we know what was decided there are ways to change it but they are by doing it in a sister court and that's what's happening here that's what that's what the problem and hernandez case what it says is the only issue in dispute is whether the issue as to which defendants assert preclusion are identical to the issues decided in the earlier case that's that's not shown on the face of decision that's why they had to go back