not sure that we have appellate jurisdiction because i don't know that all the claims were finally resolved by law and what i mean by that is the  plaintiff asserted claims for damages causes of action three four five and cetera where those claims ever decided one way or another direct your honor they weren't  and the that the plaintiff was seeking damages plant yes yes or were damages ever set determines i don't believe so your honor how do we have jurisdiction then there was no fifty four final judgment disposing of all the claims as required by rule fifty four a believe out of the eight claims only two were decided by the district judge us so how do we have jurisdiction if some of the is there discovery going on in the case at all ah there has been discovery over the last several months i believe relative to the remaining claims or relative to satisfaction of the judgments satisfaction i believe see what the thing that's troubling us is that there were times when the court was talking about and you were both there were motions for partial summary judgment a motion for summary judgment and at the time that the court made the ruling with regard to the motion for s judgment it said partial scutwork a judgment and so it's it's not clear to us if there's work left to be done by the district court or whether everything's everything is  done and and if there if there's a judgment still to be determined with regard to financial responsibility even if it's ministerial it may well be that it's not a final judgment in that regard so that that's why we're asking about it judge and i suspect at some point as we were aware of it we want to hear from you about it so we're probably going to be asking you to give us for your further thoughts in writing but  to are there are things left to be done with regard to claims for which your client could be additionally liable for financial damages i don't believe so your honor i don't believe so i don't believe so it was a very strange decision in that the district judge just  who doesn't like to answer questions and judge failing alternately decided she'd have enough and so she sanctioned you and that's one of the issues you raised but what we're still trying to figure out is if we don't have a final judgment we're not we don't think we can hear this i guess we'll hear more later why last year the sign when the point is there were claims for damages those claims were never resolved where they ever abandoned dismissed no i don't believe so the other six caught the other six claims you mean yeah and so that's that's the point is usually we don't take piecemeal appeals usually we like the whole i mean putting aside the question of post judgment enforcement that's a different question but it appears that there were claims in the case in the complain that were never resolved or banned or dismissed and so well we'll hear from the other side but want to go ahead and and use whatever time you have left to address your points ok thank you have to have you know i the point you  raised your honor about this being a bit of a strange case mr hoffman to mr golden have been battling each other for probably more than ten years in various litigations in various jurisdictions so that's part of where this comes from you have a business both are getting paid now right now this action though should have been brought in california because the plaintiff would have had personal jurisdiction over both of the defendants in california what about the sanctions i mean i don't know if that matters i mean the court issued several sanctions orders i don't know that it discretion and imposing the sanctions given all of the the failures to comply with discovery well my client produced over four thousand pages i believe in discovery which is which is a lot i mean  it doesn't matter what he produced what did he not produce i mean he may produce four thousand pages where there are thousands more pages that he was supposed to produce and he did not know but you know what you have here is a company that was floundering was operating out of his house at the time he had really no staff left there was a c e o and a c f o who didn't even live in the same state they operated by telephone they were not involved at all at the time that the transaction that underlies this whole dispute took place they came in many years later so just weren't the resources at the company level to be able to do much of anything  and he still managed to produce over four thousand pages i believe of document discovery in this case but i think we need to step back a little bit your honor to the problems with the the first amended complain because i believe it was one of the factors of a i believe we did produce some bank statements i think it was a dispute over additional bank statements from up from other banks i think there had been several banks over the years and my client didn't have access or didn't have the statements anymore but he ended up believe signing a letter to the bank allowing the bank to release to mr goldman but you know i would just want to circle back to the pleading problem that this first amended complaint didn't plead the cargo factors and mr bolden needed the cargo factor supplied in order for there to even be personal jurisdiction over these defendants so the case should have been dismissed and the judge should have allowed him to repleat and plead either c p l are fifty two twenty five or the cargo factors or both now he would have failed if he pled fifty to twenty five because of the automatic stay and he would have failed on a de facto merger doctrine because of claim preclusion as it was already a case so he he tried to split the middle and avoid getting knocked out on those two factors and judge failer allowed him to do that and effectively treated it as if his complaint was amended even though it wasn't if you take a look at  may please the court my name is barry golden i'm counsel for the appellee arrowhead capital finance ltd your first question has been one of jurisdiction over this if you'll remember of course that we didn't bring appeal were the appellate nonetheless the other counts in the complaint are essentially redundant at this point with the with the in those claims the third cause of action for example you asked for damages of no less than two point five million whatever happened to that claim and the other similar claims it's at this point moot because we have been granted declaratory judgment has missed where those claims ever dismissed and  view is i'd like to to get this done and moved on and week and at which i know is not necessarily well what pertains we don't have jurisdiction and we don't have discretion then than we don't have which is why what we need to figure out which is my suggestion that those other claims now are moot and that to send this back to judge you now on behalf of your client abandoning any and all claims for damages now because we have a not abandoning them then who is it because we have a declaratory judgment that a declaratory judgment that these defendants are liable on the state court judgment jointly and severally your complaint sought damages of not less than two point five and that it's just that that you wanted something above the state court judge number one number two o bound under that judgement your claims are our foreign force when the judgement only is that where you get your two point five me yes it was ok so your whole effort has been to to ultimately cast a successor corporations the corporations that just felt really determined were were merged within the original three defendants and have their assets then certain of ala before satisfaction the judgment is actually correct yes that's that's that's the core of what you asked for absolutely have you asked for damages that are independent as a result of some kind of fraudulent transfer no other matter had post judgment discovery some of it we've got some of it of course we still haven't got you so you would be satisfied with simply enforcing the state court judgment but the complaint does seek additional damages and that's why i'm asking are you have been any any claims were additional damage you have said that off the state court judgment yes at this point we would you have approval from your client to do that yes ok well it hasn't which it would be that of the complaint has always been to get these successors liable on on on the state court judgment ok so i'd like to address the question the and if i mispronounce her name please forgive me i asked about the bank statements and that was very much the essence of the case because what we were trying to do is track what happened to our collateral and the collateral remembering then under that promissory note in the master agreement all the monies that came in from films from taxes and from tax rebates tax credits all the other kinds of ancillary monies that came in were supposed to be deposited in a lockbox account at chase manhattan bank in here in new york which of course is also a jurisdiction on the matter and to this date not a penny has ever been deposited all the millions of dollars were collect and the reason we had difficulty dealing with that is because when it the actual was in state court the defendants then refused to produce any discovery as to what happened to those mon and then when i filed in this federal court in federal court in this very building again the defendants refused to state what happened to any of those monies and refused to turn over the bank statements and refused to tell us where the bank accounts work because the bank accounts had been changed from where they were supposed to be in the lock box so for years we have been chasing what happened to the bank statements and at finally failure and she has the patience of a saint to have put up with this because many other judges would have bounced these people several months it we had years of this before we finally got the bank statements we didn't get them because mr hoffman signed an authorization finally he gave us some of the names not complete names of the banks and of account numbers for the bank statements and we were able finally once we subpoena and by the time we got them we had already missed several trial dates because we still hadn't gotten them we still do not know what happened to all the months but we do know that we never got a penny of all the millions of dollars that were collected and we also know that this isn't the first time mr hoffman and his company's pulled this kind of stunt they have been doing the same things for years they wait until they're held in contempt and then when they're held in contempt they appeal the contempt and only after they are contempt is affirmed in a number of the cases i've had to deal with them do they finally turn over anything in this case even after judge fail and help them in contempt still didn't turn over the bank statements they never turned over the bank statements i had to get them once i got at least some of the account numbers from the banks themselves now there's also been an issue raised about their some kind of a stay in bankruptcy court there was never a stay in bankruptcy court with respect to any of these defendants and i have backwards or court order that close the case against p l c which was one that was louisiana was a chapter fifteen case i asked them when they filed the joint appendix here to include that in the in the joint appendix and they didn't in the first time then we did a motion to strike their appendix because it was incomplete and i again listed this is the document there is to be included in the joint appendix and they it so finally i asked for a leave of the court because it we were going in circles and he got leave from this court to file that document you have in your supplemental appendix eight and  say that the the bankruptcy wasn't closed this is an order if you want i can pass it out to you or it's in title order closing case pursuant to bankruptcy rule five thousand nine see that's the caption on the second page of it it says it is ordered that the above caption chapter fifteen case is here by clo pursuant to bankruptcy rule five zero zero nine zero zero correct pages eight nine i mean i don't know what can be clear note that the date on this it's eleven twenty three two thousand fifteen which is i believe after this action was commenced when arguments so that hasn't that hasn't terminated produce documents that clearly within his control and his excuses with regard to likeness some of the people who were working for him not answering just didn't hold out that understanding on ok well you know and your in this light of the fact that there has been no final disposition of all the issues there are some claims that apparently were never finally resolved do we have jurisdiction do we have any discretion i'm hearing that the plaintiff is abandoning any claims for damages above the amount of the state court judgment  the playing of should confirm that i heard counsel and give up any claims for further attorney's fees beyond what the district court has already said that should be confirmed does the abandonment of those claims for damages somehow give us jurisdiction or must there be in order entered by the district court  to dismiss those claims all right seven pages double spaced one week from tomorrow and we will reserve decision in the meantime