just a moment the pertinent to mine that the default was being considered the actions of my client the results in that the default there was no willfulness bad faith or fall on the part of my client in fact my client communicated with the judge which i'll get to in just a minute we believe that because of that the district court abused its discretion by entering the default judgment without making a proper finding on the record my client's lack of compliance with the january twentieth twenty seventeen order which require that council appear by january thirtieth twenty it he's incorporated by reference more or less well he should have done that on the record if he was going to have that the fall judgment stand up before your honor's now i'm going to propose and the right way to go about this look at the period of time that my clients behavior needs to be considered and that is january twentieth twenty seventh january thirtieth twenty seventeen now you don't have to just look at those factors but that those dates but those dates are the ones that are important those are the ones that are fair to judge my client on so january twentieth the trial court renders an order he's a small business person he resides in australia he has business contacts business dealings all over the world he did his very best to comply and i have my hand a print from the trial court's record document one thousand which was entered into the record on january thirtieth twenty seventeen it's an e mail from my client directly to the judge and it's dated that day at eleven forty eight a important the judge asked to i'm going to go back to this has to go back to the n e n coal and the enron house factors you've got to make a record to make sure that it's fair to do the default against my clients that i answer your question go ahead ok what about what about inner pro se i don't my old ones that the club forgive me the client in australia business people he he should have but he did not and he did shortly after i believe it was a month later when he didn't or a pro se appearance but i believe he had once again i'm just going to hold this up document one thousand he had been talking to counsel i believe he had a good faith belief that he was going to have counsel appear so that all the parties including the business and of the parties could be represented so in his mind why should i make a process here and you're representing marshall yes only mr marshall to see have standing we your honor if we what we believe is the correct result here is that we take this case and put it back before january thirtieth twenty seventeen when the fault was in her and then my client will have the opportunity to defend himself on the merits on can look at is the present status of the case i mean when it's insurance somewhere but not too far here today i understand your position but if we are reversed and remanded reversed th in appropriately rendered without proper findings on the record and if we go back likely it will then have the opportunity to defend on the merits this case and descend on the merits means to so the others the other side arguments will be addressed the standing mootness those arguments are addressed if you put this case back where it should be before the trial court entered the fall that's what we are seeking here reverse in reno and to the point where the trial court improperly entered without considering the end of enron house factors and the proper factors under men cole we need to go back to that point now as just as another good faith trying to work on us along with the email a january thirtieth twenty seventeen at eleven forty eight am my client also submitted a fault was in or was it you in the district court i my recollection leaving out the failure to create this record that you're right my recollection is that mr marshall acting pro se did not do th issue of the extra tauriel effect of the lanham act judge she's in the trial court final judgment indicates that defendants officers agency goes on and on and on  hence we need to get guidance on the extra tauriel effect of the lanham act clearly the us but we would urge the court to adopt the vanity fair test from the second circuit hundred fifty six or perhaps more appropriately the trader joe test from the ninth circuit for twenty sixteen to determine if the trial court's impact arguments that are before you on appeal they make different arguments and then after a few more weeks they're not getting paid either so they're forced to withdraw at that point we object to the for all we say keep them in the case until the six motions are a in the case is over or exercise your discretion and give them a little less time than the twenty one days because we've been around the carousel a number of times now and we've we've given them twenty one days on four other occasions they have taken up to three months other occasions we bend over backwards at every step and each time they hire someone they don't pay them and it just kicks the can a little bit down the road and meanwhile and they don't contest this meanwhile they're they are peddling the infringing wear around the us at trade shows pretty much in the very same timeframe where they're supposed to be entering an appearance in district court they are out making business decisions to invest their money elsewhere as opposed to investing in attorney was not releasing the client's records and their files and the district court gave the the client ten days to find new counsel and the second circuit said you know this is a blip a bit of an extraordinary situation and under that circumstance you've judge new for has had enough and he says you have ten days and standing here today i still haven't heard a reason that judge didn't because your question why he didn't just enter a process and parents to preserve any of these arguments for today he could have entered a pro se if parents said wait a minute i think i have standing to pursue not only my claims but claims on behalf of all these entities and i'd like to go forward and and by the way it's not it's you know there's because he's given no reason he's he said well you know i've been distracted by serious family issues the summer holiday period everything under the sun distracts us man from this lawsuit and we don't have any evidence in the record that he's having financial difficulties he's investing in and selling these infringing products all over the country so i must have some resources he seems to be able to come up with a retainer every six months to get him yet learned about the lack of a record for the error and how factors well again the errant house factors are completely addressed in docket nine twenty eight they're incorporated into nine fifty and those are the those are the landmarks where the police things in the papers are stricken them a judge new first order  subsequent findings in the default judgment that that enters an award of damages where the where each of the findings are there to support to support the each of the prongs and then there's no no case from this circuit that says look in order for this not to be an abuse of discretion the district judge has to go through each of these factors i'm this is probably a very stupid question so try to answer it in a way that is least embarrassing to me last day at midnight or on three days after the last day you find something but if he you know he had a month until the evidence you're hearing and then on february twenty eighth the day before you get docked at one o nine or one thousand nine one thousand nine this case you know it's breathtaking and and each time a judge i've had some severe personal issues can we can we take this down the road a little bit and meanwhile in that very same timeframe we're getting pictures that are in the record from las vegas where  rank record when he imposed the january two thousand the judge mentioned those they can bring things now that the judge is there anything so the judge relied on yeah well again you go back to the documentary number nine twenty territoriality that you know as i read their reply they're asking this court to reweigh those three factors on appeal after not even during the time they were well represented in the district court the they never made an issue of this and i don't see how that's of the in concert liability again they had a bill attorneys during the fall of two thousand and sixteen they had the proposed order right in front of them they made certain objections to the proposed order but that wasn't one of them so if you want to corporation yeah i think my argument in opposition brief may have been a slight overreach because they are looking to set aside a default judgment and a default judgment where the alter ego findings are contained so if they were successful in convincing this court that that was an of discretion then then those alter ego findings would go away but but but they certainly can't now in a reply brief purport to represent the entity's that's something that we pointed out in opposition we said you waive that opportunity that's not an alter ego to the extent that he is personally affected by these there is a individual claim there that he has standing not withstanding my argument in the brief which was based on his failure to challenge the alter ego findings but that's a pretty narrow unclear to me that the injunction prohibited anything going on in the state court and it certainly didn't seem to me mr indore was found in contempt for doing anything in the state court a minus in something i couldn't understand those are very interesting arguments see why they applied here and and that was when we were so we were just getting involved in the case at that that or the way it was applied was on its face you can you can transfer these assets when they're in connection with the foreclosure sale and that's exactly what my client did and judge new for held him in contempt you know and everyone knew that that was going to happen and the other side objected they wanted that order adjusted because they said if you do this is going to be able to do exactly what he did and then he did exactly what everyone thought it was going to do and then all of a sudden just you know my client mr marshall is personally harmed by the default judgment which resulted in or from the notice of default before being entered hence he is harm he has standing before this court my client is mr marshall not the business entities but still he's arguing on behalf of himself that he's going to be hurt unless this gets sixty tell me how hard would it have been for judge you for to respect this court and list those factors out of the air and house case find the findings if they exist i tell you i believe they don't exist hence we need to fix the situation and had anything really changed from the time he are discussed in the previous orders the law didn't change he was well aware of the law and hence i think you as a matter of justice he should have laid that out for the whore would know that he considered them also i see the other side wants of both ways he wants my client to retain counsel or he wants him to not go out and earn money by selling product and promoting products so he can retain counsel it's hard to live both ways if you're out doing business you got your business so you can retain counsel any questions your