good morning judge my name is john globe and i'm proud to be appearing here today on behalf of the appellant farmers and merchants bank of long beach which i sometimes refer to as f and them the district court was mistaken in stating that the bankruptcy court reopen the case for purely administrative reasons the record is clear that the only reason the bankruptcy court reopen the case was trayvon the debtor valley business center which i sometimes refer to as v v c a platform to sue f and i am the bank there's nothing in the record indicating any other purpose for reopening the case but that purpose and that's exactly what v b c even better has done it has to the definition in the bankruptcy court by way court and i'm not positive whether they were brought before they were reopened but an important factor is that while those matters were pending and within the procedures of those matters the de c brought to the attention of the tribunals the fact that it had a greater advantage now for prosecuting those actions or proceedings because the case had been reopened in fact that appears i believe as a footnote in the state court of appeal opinion the fact that the case has been reopened so our position your honor is that it doesn't matter that those proceedings were brought before the case was reopened but rather the debtor attempted in those proceedings to gain an advantage by contending that its status was now improved because it was now a debtor in possession in those cases and the objection to the proof of claims within the bankruptcy court was brought as only it could have been brought after the case was reopened the any of those the actions that have been brought before the order reopening the state  h any court determination of a b c did have standing before the reopening no in fact i believe that the determination was made i had standing before the reopening and i do know that in the state court proceedings one of the objections that the bank raise there was a reorganization trustworthy as a chapter eleven trustee you know then the reopening your position is a reopening in the bankruptcy court gave the debtor in possession title to the the court held that you know what makes this case difference of the court in bankruptcy court articulated the basically the reason for the reopening was now we're going to have a debtor in possession now i think there's going to be litigation and i don't think we have to turn a blind eye to the fact that the only reason in the record where the case was reopened was to give them a platform to sue the bank and that's why we're certain we think the laws complicated and one the one circuit makes a clear pronouncement we like to follow it and  understand a lot of the that a dismiss case cannot be reopened that's a pretty simple proposition one at that but that's thanks to the i mean you have to get past you know the ruling that you don't  detrimental effect its rights we certainly fall into those categories and probably three now but that's any that really being the subject of litigation as eyes those criteria because the cases that i've seen so far of the aggrieved party being subject of litigation and also by virtue of that aggrieved party being a creditor of your state the ninth circuit healthy have standing and the same applies to us here who were the target of the litigation in fact it's not anticipated litigation it's litigation that's already been brought it's a pending litigation so it's not speculative and we're also a creditor of the so called the state because we have teams of state court judgment for attorneys fees so we're just court had reopened that case what was the ground frankly i don't i don't remember and i hesitate to give an answer on this i'm sure it's going to be accurate but by the way that there was any lack of standing oh i'm sure it was not lack of staff well maybe i shouldn't say that because i don't remember but i do know that dismissal was appeal the court and their baby some confusion as to whether that is just the appeal has been dismissed or not i think maybe the district court confused that case with the appeal of the reopening order but i'm not sure about that so the status of that case is unclear it was dismissed  c had no standing to sue farmers in merges because it was not the proper party plaintiff to use california language it was not the owner of the claim if a claim had existed before the trustee in bankruptcy had been the owner of the claim trustee had been discharged along with the bankruptcy being caused now the bankruptcy was of the bankruptcy you are vested with the right shows an action against farmers a merchant bank it's on all fours and i don't think so because that case had to go beyond the mere administrative reopening of the case by there was no determination on the merits through the transfer of the right to sue to the transferee it was simply closing him with the attributes of an owner and therefore a proper party decides that farmers merchants bank had a direct kinnear interest and therefore had standing then this court still has to decide whether the banker or the district court properly decline the end of its order granting these things motions to dismiss if and banks appeal the gist of the opinion memorandum opinion from the district court dealt with the banks hard to review for abusive question that it would be and if and if that becomes an issue then perhaps this court needs to send it back for further elucidation on that point but but my point to the court is that even if farmers and merchants bank has standing there still the question of whether an appeal is even proper from the administrative order and even if the bank lands on every point all that happens i that this court since the appeal back to the district court for further proceedings to decide whether the people for the appeal has merit that issue to the case in the district court as everyone briefed the district judge granted the motion to dismiss not be so had the statute run had the missiles been final was in any jurisdiction retained if all those issues went to farmers and merchants way that would be the end of the proceeding that would be the primary issue before the district court because the bankruptcy court judge barr held that he would reopen the case for good and sufficient reasons and farmers immediately appeal from that order so that has to be that would have to be the gist of the appeal was whether the bankruptcy court even had jurisdiction to reopen its own case yes i was agreeing with that my point was that all these platter on matters that have been raised in the opening brief are not properly before th because the only thing here is whether the district court properly dismissed the appeal on the grounds stated or whether the district court somehow abused its discretion and declining to hear the appeal even if the bank had as has been alleged here by the objection to claim and by the other proceedings that preceded it then it would be a miscarriage of justice four years later i could put my hands on of what i believe by cited some authority for the proposition that the review is to no fault i'll try to find that in my brief later if the court agrees with our position then indeed we have reopening of the dismiss case i don't know what the point would be served another we have standing because i wasn't i didn't address this when i first spoke was that because of the ruling by the state court of appeal there can be no basis for further basis for the debtor proceeding pardon me in the bankruptcy court did you move to to dismiss this case on the grounds that it had already been dismissed reopened thank you very much thank you very much