that they all three counts were in a previous federal action and therefore or were decided in a state court proceeding  the state court proceeding never decided any of these three because it never had jurisdiction to the site any of these three issues they cannot decide a five zero to see claim which is count one nor can they decide jurisdiction aside that so they were not decided in the for in the in the state court action with regard to the first federal complaint count one does indeed appear in the first federal complaint  counts two and three do not because they were totally unknown to us or to the plaintiff she was improper at that time at the time of the filing of the first federal action it wasn't until discovery in the inner pleader which was long after the dismissal of the first federal action that she discovered the  adele property settlement settlement agreement so there was no way that you could know about that she wasn't even given that document until after the first federal action was dismissed there was counsel an opportunity to  have seen that she had waived forty thousand dollars of her property settlement agreement that was one third of the money that that adele had in his pension which means that my client will lose one third of her pension  when he dies before her and that's my theory they have an absolute duty a fiduciary duty to to to check that over now they're claiming that there was a stipulation in the in the inner pleader that the plane could for willis well it was too late to appeal that by the time we found out about the here the the willis adelle the property settlement agreement we could there was no we were never even a party to that lawsuit when it was time to appeal so there were virtually no remedy that that my client could obtain in state court time is the first in right there was after i couldn't understand why why would they even ask me to speculate and i asked them i said this is something i should know and they never told duty of loyalty honesty and to divulge facts that they think are important for her and that definitely important that's one third of her pension and he never said a word you started your argument indicating that the first cause of action was asserted in the claim on that same cause of action the first i think the defense position is in addition that it's barred by the requested that three minutes of my time go to my room represents the attorney defendants the principal issue on this appeal is whether the district court correctly ruled that mr williams could not proceed with her claims either because they had already been adjudicated previously in the prior federal court proceeding or because they had been previously adjudicated in the state court proceedings the claims asserted all arose from this  no pursued her interest for her benefit entitlements in multiple lawsuits in both state and federal court first she participated in the state qua proceedings and among other things she tried to stop the payments to miss willis and when that didn't work she filed the first of her federal court lawsuits asserting multiple claims for a leave all arising from that same dispute concerning what to do with mr dell's pension benefit and how it should be divided  the district court dismissed those claims finding that the competing claims for the same pension benefit or were properly entertained in state court miss williams then participated in the injured pleader action in state court that we filed in an effort to ensure that the competing claims of all the parties could be addressed in the same form and then after mr williams are received and out in that into pleader action that she apparently wasn't satisfied with she came that the federal court which is this action and at that point the district court judge decided that all the claims had been adjudicated in one form or another before now we the pension plan have been obliged to defend or participate in all of these proceedings and i think it's important to keep in mind that our role is really quite limited in these types of proceedings we are effectively like a stakeholder there's a pension benefit in the ordinary course it belongs exclusively to our pension or it's not supposed to be elevated as a matter of law but there is this carve out that has to do with what we call quadros qualified the best equations orders and if in the course of a marriage matrimonial proceeding or the like a state court issues in order that satisfies the conditions for a quadro then the responsibility of the plan is to is to carry out those orders that's it and in this in a case like this one the plans role is really just to do what he can to make sure that there's an orderly process pursuant to this one pension benefit is somehow divided up in a way that makes sense because obviously you're not supposed to end up in a result where there's one money awarded then that can be a regional pension benefit which to begin with because that's the only source of everybody's money so that's why when we were back in state court we filed this interplay their action and i think it's while it may be the case that in the first proceeding mrs williams was going after child support payments coming out of this pension benefit and in this more recent proceeding she's going after her survivor benefits was also amount of the pension benefit the same immutable fact is true which is the more money that goes to the other side to other spouse mr willis the less money that's available to her for these other benefits whether it's one or the other and it's precisely for that reason that all of that was supposed to take place in the same proceedings and it did take place in the same proceeding as good parents take place at the park and they're going to proceedings state court on the merit she took court with her counsel and i think if you're honest go through the transcript of the rather lengthy oral argument at the district court level i think you'll see that opposing counsel did concede at the end that he was provided with all the materials necessary to see this prior matrimonial order that resulted in this dispute over how much the first spouse was supposed to receive and he had his opportunity to challenge there if he thought the first pass was getting too much money we don't think his argument has much merit anyway but that was the opportunity to wait to present that is ship he's argued in this chord that this whole state court proceeding into pleader motion under these circumstances and one poorly whether it's by into plea the motion or through some other process there's clearly no dispute that state courts it's the province of the state courts to determine how to carve up a spouse's pension benefits when there are divorce proceedings going on those are war matters for the state court to handle and although what if it occurs within the overall umbrella of orissa aristos role is really just to specify the limited circumstances under which you can illian aid a pension benefit namely when there's a state court order that complies with the vs procedures and that's exactly what happened here now my adversary in his argument made the point that technically speaking he's articulate it claims that off federal court claims and not state court crimes but the second and the third claim as i think your honor established are really the same claim they're a claim for a piece is really an issue of having to divide up this pie because those are the only benefits that there are it's this pension plan and it's how to divide it up and that's exactly what the state is doing the district court correctly determined that the section five ten claim is really a non issue here because that has to do with some employer or somebody else interfering with your right to get benefits but when you're making a claim for benefits that's a five o two a one b claim which in this instance is what the state court was deciding and finally with respect to the first of the three claims the the claim for information the district quite correctly ruled that that claim was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and that was standing what my adversary says his case is stand for the proposition that run the jurisdictional issue is taken up for the first time in state court it may toll the statute of limitations but here the federal court here because these matters are properly committed to the state court i think the district court was focused on the fact that the principal claimed seem to be about how to cough up these pension benefits the district court didn't specifically focus on the claim for information maybe it should have but it was the plaintiffs responsibility to appeal then that argument if the if the plaintiff wanted to pursue that discrete claim for information and to appeal brief we are not supposed to go behind these family law matters even if it's supposedly a sham marriage we have no basis for going behind that in fact she was actually served with the motion for the quadro for the first with that she's complaining with about she was served with that and that and that's an s c r one fifty two and that those papers mentioned the two thousand order that she was complaining about so she was on notice she had an opportunity then she was served to contest sat and looked into it and that was before the her first complaint  then again i also want to point out it was incorrectly stated that  before they were married so that the two thousand was the the first wife's divorce they were married subsequently and then now we have the first wife trying to get a quadro for her share and the second wife the poem here was served with that and so the documents she's complaining about that were hidden from her fraud were actually revealed to her and that motion and she had the opportunity then she also had the opportunity in the inner pleader to challenge that the inner peter dealt with any and all claims of the as to the pension of mr europe is very  chen and our firm who are named in the second and third claims thank you thank you we were not given the divorce decree in the in the will of marriage in two thousand year old two thousand decree until after the q t r o two willis was approved by the court approved by the plant and approved by the lawyers who are named in this lawsuit as a matter of fact they didn't even get it there's evidence now that they didn't even get that judgment until long after the q t r zero for willis was made so they never but they never checked and what we have here is a situation where my client linnean to get a q t r zero for child support only she never challenged willis's right to get her share of the community property from the pension and what she did know exactly what that was she assumed life like i assume the trial judge did and the plan did that is that willis was entitled to half the pension for the time that she was with adelle in fact nobody  approved by the judge approved by the lawyers all of whom are are neutral this is an inner pleader you know in the state court they're all neutral they all of apparently are out there saying we have no ax to grind here and in fact they had an ax to grind and well the only thing my client was complaining about in the first federal action if you read that that trope all the way through and it's in it's it like a stream of consciousness of thing she was in she was she was angry because  two thousand and three she was trying to get a q t r zero for child support and when she was farming about to get a q p r over child support they all of a sudden said hey there's a forty seven thousand dollars prior claim to the pension and she was upset because they were who this prior claim was was years and years before made by willis and she was upset because there's only an eighteen month hold on the money and they held the with the money the forty seven thousand  they should have warned her when she had a chance to do something maybe if you know plater that hey we screwed up but they didn't and they were asked