and which require reversal of the district court's decision here a st in stasi associates has article three standing fund liquidations clear that a priest suit assignment of claims does not implicate article article three their complaint why is why isn't he judicially has stopped you take one position of one court you can't take a contrary position other kenya so that was you need your honor that was it was a pleading that was was apprised of it in their motion for reconsideration of our efforts to do that and did it and did consider that but at this at this point in that in that case the one that  trust is no longer even a party to the case and that allegation was stricken and that allegation was was was used in the in the district court case it was out of context and it was it was years without moving preditions notice the other one which is pretty clear you you you you you say that it was a creditor is really a credit mechanism and i can understand that but you don't you diffident you did rebut the earlier phrase in the complaint the said the jurors signed the stars you designed everything so the trust i mean this is the this is a mass of the so let's get this clear so you liquidation fund does straightens out the standing issue i think that's fairly clear that you that you  turns now on in the reopen at least as things currently stand if you assignment is still legitimate or or there then the real party in interest to somebody else  have the trust ratify the action i mean it seemed to be somewhat delayed and and surprisingly so having had the issue arise so the request was made at the same time as the motion  reconsideration and the reason for that was that was up until that point we believe and we still believe and the reason we believe this is because there never wasn't an actual simons that was a real party in interest and until would be a good example of that because it was far longer farther along in the case where they sought to bring in the parties who are the you know in that case their actual sign easily they didn't dispute it and they were permitted and then have been was not the real party and interest relying on that statement in the state court action but you waited until the the motion to reconsider to address it in my right understanding that chronology so that's correct if the in the context which will be six motion under for a real party in interest they made the argument that we were not based on a single pleading and in a disparate and separate action we didn't believe was very credible and certainly not emotion miss it became more credible in the context of judge firms believe those in article three standing issue where it would make more sense that we would in response to an article three standing of a twelve b one expect that he would because there was no motion for initial notice which was required and because it he took it for the truth of the matter asserted which which is a matter of evidence was was improper he could take additional notice the fact that there was a separate case and there were filings  but but under this court's precedent it taking it for the truth of the matter certain that there had actually been a legal simon it was was improper and we didn't expect it at least in the context of twelve b six nonetheless you'd have leading that was saying exactly the we did we did refile after after judge from his decision yes if a special imitation is probable in that case that would be that that would be the problem that's why that's my relation back and seventeen a are critical and that and we believe that's the purpose of of seventeen a is to make sure that no just just claims are not lost due to you know honest mistakes there will hear from your adversary thank you thank you liquidation the district court here expressed we found that the real party of interest the trust failed to join substitute or ratify the action within a reasonable time under rule seventeen and i believe my adversary suggested otherwise  that that that judge from an only rule on standing but that's that's incorrect judge from an express he said in his ruling on a motion for reconsideration that even if he was wrong on standing he analyzed the issue under rule seventeen and found that the request was not made in a timely manner given the arguments raised by the appellants i think it's important to focus for a minute on the proceedings in the district court for a context for judge from his exercise of discretion following more than one hundred pages of interest in its many pleadings and then even more inexplicably the stasi didn't reach didn't seriously address standing were real party of interest in its opposition papers as a reminder that defendants raised real part of interest as there some problem here with just the confusion in this case say that the district court did not have the benefit of liquidation so it was looking through the lens of jurisdiction and article three standing but to the extent that this is a rule seventeen issue it does seem to me that it's not a twelve b one issue but a twelve b six issue and you usually don't expect to be going outside the pleadings and and relying on filings seventeen motion and in fact in the court and case which was cited by both parties the court considered extremes of evidence from twelve b one ocean and then it important to same findings in its rule seventeen analysis it didn't say that you  materials that they were viewed and for twelve the one purpose is now had to be completely ignored and i think it's important also to focus on the nature of these these materials these weren't just a stray statement made by some artisan where these were repeated statements made in state court by the party represented by the same counsel that were made only three months after the assignment issue they should be afforded every benefit of the doubt  all of this ties arguments on appeal everything you just heard from from my adversary were only raise the issue of court on a motion for reconsideration so turning to their request to ratify general seventeen will seventeen time and you know what intervening proceedings between the st mention that there was a rule seventeen problem and when ratification was proposed for the st pension it was made in the defendant's prejudice is in terms of the year that's passed since this decision was made we've had a long delay here you could have just as easily last march filed a motion  filed a new plane i filed a new case as it did in july and chose instead to seek reconsideration and appeal we could have been a year down the road but i think it's also important to say that  your prejudice is not necessarily be the only standard rule seventeen only speaks to reasonable time and decisions of this court held that rule seventeen really should be denied when there is evidence  bad faith or an effort to deceive or prejudice or unfairness and here i would say that it's clear that making one sworn statement in state court over and over again and then changing position when it's convenient after federal claims  state claims twelve b the standing argument was immediately following the standard for twelve b six and i don't see anything that would put us on notice that there is d a d twelve the one motion for relating to standing i just don't think it exists and those motions  to address another point going over to to rule seventeen we cited in our brief and i believe there are very persuasive cases that say and i think this is the right decision on this that it's reasonable for a party to wait until a decision is made by the by the district court as to whether they are real party in interest you know this is eleven reason this is distinct from from the liquidation fun case is that in that case they can see that there is an assignment in this case we believe very strongly that there there was not an assignment and once once it was clear what the judge decided immediately moved to ratify and that and i don't think there's any reason to question that the trust wouldn't be supportive of that because even before the judge is judge from his decision the trusts and the stasi took action to request leave to make a proper corrections and remove the trust from the state court actions to the very action the judge from in relied on just send it back so that the stars he wants now is the real party in interests that would be our requested holding would be either that you but that would be the finding that they are the real party in interest or alternatively if that if you're not position or now the trust is no longer interested in ratifying so the very thing that the circuit court has reversed me on that is rule seventeen or the implications liquidation fund and rule seventy are suppose reason why i think remand be appropriate thank you for your argument thank you both then we will take the matter under advisement that is the last case to be argued this morning so i will ask the