have such matters stiction are those matters that are side of them by congress or what makes this jurisdiction there's no doubt that the bankruptcy court has authority over a bankrupt a state the issue here is whether there was authority to put the estate into bankruptcy the court terms of what a california might court might do procedurally we have rule sixteen b which is a federal rule or civil procedure and we look at the court's invocation issue is here is really an issue of the course discretion on a motion for reconsideration there was no error of california law because there was no request to reinstate the corporation there was not any motion for a continuance to reinstate the corporation what happened is they continued to deny attempting in effect to pass off the wrong corporation as the corporation interest and only after was necessary to gain the revival before the case was over in this case they insisted to the contrary that they did have the right corporation that revival wasn't necessary it went to the court they lost that issue clearly an they created three similarly sounding corporations why they didn't revive the corporation that was the real corporation interest why instead they formed a new corporation that had a similar sounding name and then argued that it was the same corporation attempting to pass it off but very strange facts here and i think under these circumstances and these facts even a california court would say enough is enough but let's assume we can get well i think that the concepts of the stoppel waiver latches ratification on these facts all essentially encompass the same concept and that is that you can't in the face of a bankruptcy of your corporation proceed to act like a creditor of the corporation file a proof or clan let the trustee litigate an entire adversary action to completion quiting title to the property in the name of the corporation oppose motions for stand by judgment creditors against the property and then wait until the trustee actually sells the property for a million dollars more than you yourself are willing to pay for it and then suddenly rise up and say oh hold under the facts of ak a switch frankly were not as nearly as egregious as this that the situation was ratified or they had acknowledged taking advantage of the acts of the corporation and and that would be the end of this appeal but it would not necessarily be the end of claims or questions about subject manager stiction at the very least that if they do remand they should do it with instructions that in fact  to make a store shit demands on the trustee in this case to basically bollixed the transactions that need to be taken the cells that need to be closed in order to properly administer this case they have successfully by arguing subject matter jurisdiction entered into an area where the law on the ninth circuit is uncertain and where title companies frankly are unwilling to close transactions there's two ways to solve the problem in this case you right about ratification a letter notifying the trustee of the nature of the dispute that it was uncertain what her his her but the trustee knew about three days after the case was filed i don't know exactly when summit found out about it but it was certainly sometime after that