one to fix anything like twenty minutes for me i think the principal issue in this case is not something that should take anything like twenty minutes well i think the principle issue is the court if we're going to get t you had an immediate conflict between the plaintiff's attorneys with a motion to withdraw one file that the court refused to entertain they asked for and i did a continuance along with that motion of withdraw two parties out of four plain first of all let me know if this is a serious comporting that one or more of the members of this family are saying that lawyer went into that settlement conference and reached a settlement agreement and he had absolutely no authority to do it then they are to be suing the lawyer for fining and or filing a complaint with the state bar of california right this court should know that it's not that easy to do that in the state i've been in authority i don't know that for a fact your honor i just don't know that i certainly didn't but you have separate problems besides the consent the second problem which has to be faced by this court and that is but that's one reason but i'm also saying that the court did not have jurisdiction entertain a dispositive proceeding at the summit conference which ended up being because the magistrate judge clearly stated on the record look folks we have a judicially enforceable settlement the only way anyone can get out of this is if the bank decides to get out of it so then you run into a problem with summit conference was over it just came apart they didn't agree with anything that happened and i agree with what you said your honor and that was well respected they should have done something at least at that point against the attorneys were brought him into the that's why this case came apart when judge magistrate judge simply the night hearing the motion to withdraw before going into the stadium and conference that was very critical he should have give he should have given affecting four hundred other depositors they got mailed by the bank because the trial court found that the bank had breached the savings account agreement in shorting the plane with interest so how are you going to handle the four hundred other people are getting roped into the same agreement when it's clearly against the richest one class action but it was a representative action under seven thousand two hundred of the business a professional it's essentially the same thing there are just never got to that stage the critical fact is that the myth that they knew this before the motion for settlement was ever filed so presumably have they truly had any objection to the settlement agreement as it then stood once the motion to even entertain the motion are to entertain the settlement conference with respect to the issue ability of the banks saddler the authority the bank to settle make a binding on a corporation but if you look at the legislative history in the purpose of that statute all it is is to create the presumption against the corporation so that anyone suing a corporation which is trying to get out bank has agreed after some a conference agreed to the terms of the settlement went back to the board of directors the only condition proceed and that was required by the terms of obtain the board of directors and the future buyers the first issue i would raise is that there's no question that it would apply to civil marriages to be a because they were in fact present i believe there is no contention that they were not present they've impression while the cases in california have basically said that attorneys cannot bind their clients to settlement agreements in interpret in cases under section sixty four point six there are no cases that address this particular situation i believe in the decision of robinson versus chair and they made note that there are potentially special attic considerations that may come into play did they waive any rights they might have under six six four point six one in two ways first there was no objection two points basically first there was no objection to the motion to enforce settlements based on a lack of authority or the fact that they were not present and they were represented by two separate sets of counsel so they had to opportunity since there wasn't the opposition to the banks motion making a fact statement that they were not present there was a fact statement made in the statement of facts in the opposition that they were not there but no where in the argument was that ever raised or was there any and say because they weren't christian and this code section requires their presence and consume their attorney is not that the settlements not binding is that what you're saying that all of that in a package was not opposition tie those two things together argue because of their absence and the requirements of the code the settlement was not binding on them no there was nothing to find those facts together and as your honor may recall office in our answer in brief we raised that very issue to show the flip side of the situation which is they knew their new attorney knew that they were not there and did not raise any objection based on the fact that they were not there and i believe that supports our position which had been going into this fall in the motion for unforced motions and for settlement which was that there was authority on the part during the course of discussions prior to going on the record that everyone believed that all the parties there had thirty to fully settle the case your answer that the record does not reflect what i just described that recall being anywhere on record believe this is a special consideration case that the iraq's in court discusses it's an unusual situation and it's also i guess amplified by the fact that as the counsel pointed out this entering into an agreement on behalf of their adult children as they were presumably entering into on behalf of the several hundred other account holders so i think that bolsters the position that there is support for this particular situation in which the parents are binding their their children to the settlement one particular piece of evidence i think is critical is that of the fact that the settlement had been reached yet nowhere has there ever been in the trial court an argument made vast either the council of record had no authority or so on their behalf which we're not arguing agreement and the plaintiffs all agreed now that is clearly misleading with respect to the prior and i mean if judge gray didn't take the time to understand who was present and who was not at the summit conference that's clearly spearing must either signed the settlement agreement and or before the court say yes i understand what i'm doing this is my last chance to come in and complain about it and i agree with everything now counsel mentioned the case robson  which that made an exception to in theory a parent having the author already to represent the children robertson versus chen is an insurance case and it speaks directly to insurance adjusters that all the are certain things that the attorney simply cannot do good or bad for the court and this is one of them