the court reaches the abuse of discretion standard or not the distant judge how its failure to issue the injunction is infected by an error of law which is that he decided incorrectly that claim preclusion or that's the obviously the heart of the issue and on this on cecil fish a leak the there there is a put an actual end or potential conflict between what the our eye is asking the court to do here and what the court of appeals did but that is not an irreconcilable conflict this court under both california supreme court law and the united states supreme court law is the arbiter of the scope of the federal judge and i california court decision was not final a petition reform review was filed and it was so it was not a final decision when the when the or i filed for an injunction and the district court then the district court district court right there at least one or two california stations saying that even a ruling that might be final for purposes of say a felon review is not necessarily final for  corporation which in itself is a is a just an incorrect statement of the law in the corporation brother records only through the board of directors this is a closely held corporation with four directors and a voting block each person has been in each of the four shareholders the twenty five percent shareholder they're all equal they all same rights but what what jordan's theory that as presented to the court of appeals wasn't even briefed was that a voting because the very actions that were litigated in the state in this case extensively and as found by this court two years ago is is that the actions were taken by the corporation based on a vote of the i understand that my point is that it was it was included in the record and even if it wasn't although it was the the scope of race judicata claim preclusion or collateral stoppel it will i'm sorry a claim preclusion extends to those facts which could have been raised in support of the argument but were not raised so in that and that makes some common sense certainly at the appellate level you don't want a plaintiff or a defendant holding back his arguments or defens or could have been litigated now turning back to the to the issue of the of what the court of appeals actually decided in the in the unpublished decision first of all the question is what what respect is the court of appeals decision  disingenuous i don't mean to be but here's the issue as far as i can tell from from the court of appeals decision the only thing that they are ruled on the actual holding of the case is that jordan could stay to claim for a damage claim could have been raised in the in the stuck in opposition the summary judgment modena where you want to do is enjoying the california proceeding on the basis of federal preclusion law i understand th finale once we're back in court the jargon could literally make arguments and it's up to the state court to rule on them and this court doesn't have the ability at that point to protect its own or interpret its own judgment whether correct your honor i mean as i understand it served if there's a problem down the line it could be that one well i would like to agree with you and say i could go back and do that i don't think i'm not sure that i can i think w because right now we're here this is this is the issue that's presented in this court as well that its rights to say whatever the court of appeals decision was jargon is at least in drawing from prosecuting any claims  facts or a few issues that may be helpful to the court one is there was a statement made by brother records before judge that for some reason these pages were admitted from the original excerpts of record i filed my published brief without having benefit of these of th order when i said that judge huff did not directly refer to the n c injunction act or to any federal statute but in preparing for this argument and really reading judge hudson order over and over it occurred to me that the judge has made numerous factual findings six that i count in his order which directly defeats the exception agree that the i believe it doesn't matter because he wasn't going to issue the injunction in stating his reasons he stated specific factual reasons why the state of california state court of appeal decision  pains to make the point that there are the facts defeated any exception to the nth injunction statute even though he didn't specifically refer to the federal statute but he does make specific findings of fact that seem designs to support his opinion when confronted with a federal statu and he doesn't specifically first of the federal he also goes on to draw the conclusion that the state court of appeal decision in no way challenges the federal courts decision i believe the purpose or justification or the n t injunction exception is to protect the federal judgment geishas by state court judge hobbs apparently felt that his federal judgment was not being impaired or derogated in any brother records so it's a case amalgamated sugar and in that case the court made specific factual findings of how vigorously that case had been litigated the number of witnesses the number of depositions i think there were nine thousand pages of documents produced so in amalgamated sugar the court had findings in the record to make a ruling on as to whether or not i think they were pretty is represented in the case that rulings there are no specific facts in this record to support any ruling additional ruling that print there are pretty as a brother records seems to argue that once there is an issue of claim preclusion that no shareholder is in total through the protection provided by the corporate veil that's not the way i have read amalgamated sugar but certainly judge prompted may made no record a factual record supporting the application of the ruling parties in the federal offering to buy and they're not trying to bind the shareholders or trying to find your client who was a particle at a geisha and and they're saying i think that he can't come into his state court and assert the same claims all over again if it's inconsistent with what this federal court held well your honor the state court of appeal even though seemed to recognize that there were similar facts found a different primary right that mr giardina was attempting to vindicate and there's a court a different harvey did what you which isn't the test of course and under federal law but i mean we have presume that if the federal court were deciding it would be relying on the findings of fact made by the district court we don't care about primary rights theory of we're playing federal law correct we only care about transaction that is correct  amendment cutoff date in federal court for beyond words three days before trial i make a motion to amend to include an intentional tort claim of some kind and the judge says no that doesn't mean i'm going to  and even be that the race should cut a ruling on the state court was incorrect as a matter of federal law if it were john allen issue where does that leave us with so i guess the question is what does that charge do about does the judge really hear the entire matter or which probably would have to be done and reopen the entire case below appears the judge talked agreed that the state that mr jordan did have a right to argue an additional or separate primary right in the state court that he had not addressed the judge help it not addressed in the district proceedings  impractical position this court is in as good a position as any specially given the published decision and big brother records the giardina to simply reverse and remain with instructions to enter an injunction if the in terms of respect of the decision or the reason and the solution of coming down coming in again and reprieve from the issue in the district court at some later date if it becomes an issue i think is is is not the efficient way to do what the efficient way is to deal with what really i think in the real a geisha injunction situation this is what this is what every federal court grapples with in the in the distinction between the federal and state systems it is the fact that there is a state court with similar