action and reverse the denial of her by partner's motions to intervene but for today's purposes and really like to focus on two employment issues for this court to provide guidance and direction and those issues are whether the district court exceeded the boundaries of its discretion in determining the early may partner's motion to intervene was untimely and action is the wing for closure action in this state court action the only question is whether the settlement is valid or fully so the determination from the state court is simply whether the settlement is to be set aside the lien releases that were executed as part of that settlement would be decided by the state court as to whether the lien releases were invalid and should be set aside and then the federal court action would proceed on that question leam foreclosure there are two separate questions the federal court action decides how much just bald eagle the state court action decides whether the settlement is invalid well if if the court finds that the stipulation of dismissal is falut and that the court lose what is there for the federal court to decide i mean you can't pick and choose and will be the question of the federal the stipulation of dismissal we did submit is not a jurisdictional question it's a question of orderly procedure that is the question is in this case we have a motion to intervene that is filed two weeks before the stipulation of dismissal is entered the court said that it lost consider the motion to intervene and is powerless because of the following of the nd stipulation of dismissal what that means is that no matter how valid a motion to intervene might be no matter how significant the intervene rs rights may be no matter how long the motion is can mean that the good named parties can prevent intervention simply by filing the stipulation of dismissal and we submit that is that it means that the rights of the proposed intervener are dependent upon how quickly the court reacts and rules on the motion to enter me and i know you have i know you have lots of things you want to cover but let me let me ask you this what specific fraud  the fraud that occurred began long ago the fraud occurred when s t c in bald eagle agree back in march of two thousand and nineteen to settle this case for five hundred thousand dollars in prince for a rights to bald and that was that was their settlement agreement they agreed on material terms of settlement in march of two thousand and nine then they used the motions practice in the issue my client thought its interest were protected because there was an attorney garrets were would who was jointly representing both my client ready by partners and s was going on the only way that my client would have known that its interests were not protected by what representation of mr forward and the agreement with this p c that there would be no settlement without the agreement  dismissal bear in mind there is still a contract between the big partners in s t c requiring that they jointly agree to who represents the plaintiffs in this action and then they had together very quickly within hours of finding out of the deception of attorneys for what there was a claim against s p c for violation of the contract now that would have been a playing against s t c and our position is that that would not necessarily have destroyed jurisdiction because the supplemental jurisdiction provisions of twenty eight  the motion to intervene the court had said in the october hearing that she would allow us to refile the motion to intervene when the state was lifted when we filed the motion for relief from stay and to assert the motion to intervene with more evidence of why we should be allowed to intervene we had a complaint with that that did not include any state law claims against s p c so the diversity issue essentially went away when we filed the nd motion to intervene with a revised complaint with that and the additional facts to support of the intervention so it so i think one of the critical issues for this word is what was stated as a jurisdictionally as you begin we believe is really a procedural issue and that is that the court should determine the actual parties in the case who have appeared mohali in the motions intervening in the court's ruling on the motion to intervene before determining whether a stipulation a dismissal under rule forty one has actually been signed by all parties who happened here that is simply an orderly procedure to the district courts well reasoned decision should be affirmed for four different reasons erst the district court did not abuse its discretion in holding partner's st application to intervene was on time second the district court did not err in denying to do all that i think the facts in this case would it would show that rarity bay partners was aware of its interest in the case from from the very beginning obviously it had monitored the even by then he was aware that that settlement negotiations were were going on and in his affidavit each he testified that that surprised so even if we look at a lot of cases that say actual knowledge of the possibility of settlement jeopardizing legal interests is the starting point for him from which a party should have known to intervene in that case that that starts here in early may of two thousand and nineteen and the  st application intervene was not filed to almost five months later but again our position as partners had an interest it knew that interest from the very beginning it chose to stay on the side i case i don't know necessarily what formal notification means but there are certainly e mails in the record judge on that show that settlement settlement discussions were were being were taking place between the parties and i also point out on this point that and we pointed this out in our brief that the council support would that one point had had even recommended the five hundred thousand dollars settlement that ultimately took place and recommended that was reasonable and should be accepted so to to say that he was unaware of any settlement negotiations whatsoever it simply wouldn't be  negotiate came to an end when partner said we were not going any further in terms of negotiations than salem point capital at that point was was left to either reach an agreement with bald eagle upon terms that it was reasonable or continue spending a significant amount of money on this litigation when its other option was there was a resolution at site and that's what adopted to do to do your honor you raise a good point about the contract manifold arguments in this case by say by rare debate partners that really are more breach of contract issues which are not before this court today there are present and other litigation pending in state court in tennessee but they're not in in this federal i've got a lot of whether they are or they are just trying to figure out what the facts are in those case court's opinions briefly turning to the five timeliness factors on the st application to intervene this is reviewed for an abuse of discretion and when the court looks at judge reads opinion it is well reasoned and it analyzes each of these five factors the st of which is the progress now we're not necessarily talking about the time that the case has been pending but what's actually happened in the case and judge reeves did not air when she held that extensive progress and substantial motion practice had taken place including cross motions for summary judgment which militated in favor of a finding that the intervention was on time and now we also have to look at the purpose for which the intervention was sought and if if partners in this case had been allowed to intervene and  t that that st intervening complaint in this case it wasn't just seeking to protect its collection interests with respect to bald eagle but what it was seeking to do was follow a claim of breach of contract claim against salem point capital and that would have rewritten expanded the scope of this litigation and the cursed case says that a party seeking to intervene to rewrite the course of litigation must intervene sooner than a party seeking to intervene to preserve its interests on i see that v and the plaintiff s p c are b p is not now nor has it ever been a party there's no doubt the judge reads decision not to overturn the stipulation of dismissal is correct however even if there is some level of metaphysical doubt her decision was not one that evidences the clear sort of error in judgment required to overturn it even if even though even though rarity bay was not a party even if we accept that you know you don't deny it that it hits stanch oil interests and was at least at some point seeking to protect those interests because in being in the us and its collections agreements there was a an attorney involved in protecting their interests right correct your honor they certainly by and through the collection agreements there was some sort of right or ability to discovered that our b p was no longer properly representing its interests communicating with it discussing settlements so as species interests diverge from from our b p at that point and as judge heinrich mentioned that might very well be a breach of a contract it could best before the knox county circuit court right now over that breach of that ancillary agreement doesn't affect what we're talking about here today it might entitle our b p to damages down the road from the circuit court it but they're simply incorrect our b p s assertion of fraud in the filing of the joint stipulation is without merit everything that was put in the joint stipulation all the facts all the circumstances everything the standard said in her brief everything she said today is simply not present our b p disagrees i'll grant them that they disagree with the propriety of s p c dismissing the case they just they disagree with some of the things that were said in the stipulation that certainly doesn't rise to the level of fraud and judge reeves noted that he noted that parties often characterized the litigation in different ways but it wasn't it wasn't something in the vein of a misrepresentation or fraud to d gain some sort section before well that that exception is used very very nearly and there's no order or judgment to be void void just really only comes up when there is some sort of fundamental lack of jurisdiction because there he says that he was never involved in reviewing or revising settlement documents in fact i had no knowledge of anyone exchanging settlement terms or documents with the attorneys for the bald eagle defendant other than an documents or proposed dismissal was being prepared exchanged negotiated or discussed and in fact the very day that the stipulation of dismissal was side by an attorney not of record and entered the attorney for bald eagle was asking mr swartwood for an extension of discovery deadlines despite the fact that the settlement documents had already been signed he was intentionally deceived by both parties in this case that is the really unusual circumstance in this case the court was required to view on a motion to intervene the facts in the light most favorable to the movement and did not do so that is the abuse of discretion going beyond that balance three of viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the movement looking at the progress of the case the court did not say it did not indicate in there is nothing in the record indicate there would have been any change in the scheduling order no deadlines that would have been changed her missed by allowing intervention nothing to be redone so there there really is not the court did not even acknowledge the interest they were partners had in receiving half of the monetary proceeds of the settlement and all of the property that would be achieved by any foreclosure on bald eagles property looking at the question of rule sixteen and bear in mind that is it's really a partner's position that the stipulation of dismissal should not have been a laugh and that the motion to intervene should have been granted st on a rule sixteen motion the court looks at a case by case factual inquiry balancing the policy a finale and i quote from the blue diamond cold case the incessant command of the court's conscience that justice be done in light of all the facts we respectfully submit that in light of all the facts in this case justice requires that the dismissal be reversed and that ready made partners be allowed to intervene thank you thank you mr henderson any further questions judge