she will d let you know when your time to argue has its fire and she will also give you a two minute warning or there so it looks like we're ready to proceed with the st case  is that we did move for reconsideration and then the motion after the lower after the district court judge  in other words be we didn't to move for reconsideration under the circumstances we did do it but i i don't think that it was mandatory for  extension of time from the rd he ca and all of those extensions and time motions were denied and and actively opposed by the lee and yet there was no was a move to the bankruptcy court and then just a few days ago the federal district court issued an order cracks oh i'm sorry yes what happened was we have tw two appeals this one and an appeal from the bankruptcy judge orders that he issued that appeal went to district court and in miami the judge saw and just go and just recently issued i think super seventy was his decision on that and in there he says i'm stayed away from the issues that the th circuit is is going to consider and so that case though has some of the decision consider only certain issues and as far as we were concerned we were left with no remedying sense that if i had taken the usual remedy which  in our brief which is misrule failure to challenge the basis stated basis of the district court's order despite having an opportunity to do so the court's case law stating that the issue  must st be raised in the district court for it to be preserved for appeal is is legion and well settled has the court noted we cited the mcbride versus mcmillan case demonstrating bad in circumstances when an issue  cited the st histories case which is also just kind of a general statement saying stick stating that reconsideration must be moved for and it it's it makes sense as a proposition of law that when an error appears for the st time on the face of a district are and there's every opportunity to move for a rehearing it would be on the appellant to move careering or reconsideration on that issue in order for it to be reserved because the district court did not have an opportunity to address the authority in the rd dca that court has determined that when the debtor is the appellant in an appeal the automatic bankruptcy stay does not apply so we had no need when the final judgment of foreclosure was entered and it was appealed by mrs rowe and mr o the rd dca is clear that the automatic bankruptcy stay does not apply there however we still had be foreclosure bankruptcy judgment which is enforceable and final regardless of whether there's a pending appeal and of course we want to move forward with the foreclosure sale however in that instance the automatic stay does apply which is why we went to the bankruptcy court to seek relief to move forward with the sale so in relation to the to the waiver issue just to wrap that up in the reply brief we did not hear any reason has to why that waiver rule would apply in this circumstance now we're hearing that mr o says the nd the nd exception to the rule for preservation and i think he was referring to the access now decision where lays out five potential exceptions mr o is now saying that the nd exception was with the nd of nd the nd exception states that there's no opportunity to raise the issue in the district court where clearly there was an opportunity indeed mr o filed a motion for reconsideration on behalf of mr rome so there was clearly an opportunity and i think that's a theme throughout this appeal i mr o continually says that he had no opportunity to do certain things the issue is that mean miss roe did not have an opportunity to make those arguments so we believe that the issue is not preserved moving on to the nd issue which is whether we even have to risk diction under the all writs act because there's other avenues for relief  and again as your honor pointed out these issues are all we're also also raised in the consolidated appeals that were recently addressed by the district court judge scola all of these issues were already raised and again mr rose argument for not having other avenues for relief or that these other avenues for relief are not granting him and her the relief they're seeking and that's not a basis to avoid the fact that there are other avenues for relief there are other courts that courts of competent jurisdiction that rules on the issues that he ever he has raised there is no jurisdiction to collaterally attack those rulings by him by initiating an entirely separate proceeding and then the basis for that is that we disagree with the rulings made by these other federal jurisdiction it is there to to get to use the jurisdiction already apparent from other from another action in order to further federal jurisdiction not to create federal jurisdiction and the only argument we saw in the reply brief is that well this involves bankruptcy issues so it involves federal law well that's not what the issue means in relation to having to have a jurisdiction basis to utilize the already sacked a couple of other issues that i wanted to raise even though we didn't get much into the merits of the underlying mr o is primarily arguing that the rd dca did not have jurisdiction to determine whether the automatic stay applied in that instance while we've cited numerous cases in our brief demonstrating the idea that state courts have concurrent jurisdiction with the bankruptcy courts to determine the stay and that's exactly what happened here now a little bit of the procedural history may be helpful to understand really the basis for this argument miss roe filed for bankruptcy after misrule filed for bankruptcy she filed her an initial brief in the rd dca and then only after that did she move for an extension and alternatively a stay while the bankruptcy proceeding was going forward so i think she understood that there was no state based on the thirty series case law it was only when it became clear that and versus say yes you did your honor yes so i guess the question is if that's the reason why we have not attempted to argue to support that basis for the court and we're arguing that the record supports numerous other bases to support the district court's decision  we've got i mean it's under the on the undisputed record we've got waiver issues and we've got there is no jurisdiction under the all writs act so under this court's precedent that you can affirm for any reason supported by the record there be no reason to remand on that basis it would be it would be further proceedings in an already overly multiply what should be a straightforward foreclosure case so that you know that's our position and clearly  obviously discretionary but we believe the court should exercise its discretion to affirm the district court's judgment on any one of these bases that are supported by the record and supported by the undisputed evidence and even if we get to the merits of the arguments the case law is clear that the rd that the rd district court of appeal the florida appellate court had jurisdiction to determine whether the automatic stay applied in this case and that's all they did they didn't violate the automatic stay wells fargo didn't apply and didn't violate the automatic stay by following the rd district court's orders so there's no basis for any of the arguments by mr and mrs rowe that wells fargo violated any kind of automatic stay you can't violate an automatic stay when you have a court compelling you to act in a particular way the odd procedural posture in this case is strictly the result of mrs rowe determining that she disagrees with the rulings of other courts of competent jurisdiction this is a collateral proceeding for an whole writs act and i don't think it would i don't think it would conserve traditional resources to remand for the district court to address these issues when all of the law and the undisputed facts are before the co but if the court is prepared to discuss that order essentially yes to a certain extent the district court judge scola determined that the issues related to miss rose collateral attacks on a judgment procedure and instead sought to collaterally attack the rulings where she already knew that there were she was going to not receive relief and collaterally attack those rulings  regarding the issue of the state violations and the need to have a district court declare the orders issued by the state trial court regarding the state violations i notice that in the national medical imaging case the party there was one of the parties was in bankruptcy in pennsylvania and an appeal was going on in the rd district court of appeal order and one of the parties went to the thirty's a and said you know there's this bankruptcy case that we think there should be a stay on this appeal in the thirty's yet and so they asked st before there was any violation of course they didn't violate anything the thirty c a came back with well we know we so i think we have a real problem in the national medical imaging case the judge writing the opinion said that the shop and the growth case as colors a lot in order to do that so maybe the other d c area is going to come into alignment with the other district courts the deal in florida which will recognize the bankruptcy stay even this court recognizes the bankruptcy statements about the state judge scola decision are not true because the issues in that case do not overlap with this case because with no remedy no adequate expeditious remedy because in the meantime because they had my late in the stay they were able to advance the thirty's appeal and then take this before we ever took any appeals of the three orders from judge cristol in bankruptcy who are so the the issue is in judge king's court or separate