hang on for just a second well but you have your misery in about twenty minutes ok little tricky because ultimately what's being reviewed are grueling as of the bankruptcy court the district court's decisions are the procedural framework because we had to file an appeal from those decisions confirmed right it's been confirmed and again it's from may to create image have been made it's been completely implemented there is no reason for the case to be open any longer except for this appeal and ultimately the question  plan issues dismiss the appeal as to the plan because mr solomon like standing he is not aggrieved because he used to be paid in full under the terms of the plan are there any other creditors that are i suppose plan a pro could ask that they return the money but there's no legal basis for doing it well let's just film and say this is film there were legal basis then i suppose you might have collection problems too  unsecured creditors were impaired because they were paid over time ok but that that that was the impairment and the secured creditors i don't believe there were any secured pricing so the creditors that were pick over what period of time for their page i believe the payments were supposed to be made over a period of one year in two years depending on which for which class and i believe most if not all were paid was the same as some other employees why was he paid all why was the plan provide that he would pay over be paid over a longer period of time you know i don't know what went into the minds of the people who put together the plan all i can tell you is what it provides he was put into a separate class and the plan provides for payment over three years i think possibly and i'm speculating that possibly the amount of his his hypothetical was large enough that it would take a substantial period of time to pay him off the other creditors had smaller claims and it was easier to work them into the into the castillo equation so would me have standing to argue about the length of time on which he was supposed to be paid it's pretty weak because in bankruptcy interest allows for  equating present value with french papers and if you are receiving interest then then being paid over time is the same as sure but i think that doesn't that would not impair standing to make that argument everything that he's entitled to receive he's not aggrieved by the plan and if a party is not agreed by the plan that he's he's doesn't have standing looking at it it's it's a relatively minor point because we also have the equitable mootness argument in the constitutional movement's argument equitable mcness is the doctrine which allows the court to dismiss an appeal where there has been a comprehensive change in circumstances that it would be in equitable to consider the merits of the appeal this plan has been completely implemented to the point where it just wouldn't be right to overturn it when we would be in the what would happen then who would be the next step i don't know you don't know i can't i can't imagine how we go back into the bankruptcy court and say we have a plan that's been overturned it's been completely consummated completely why he thought that was the appropriate sanction for the for the infraction well it wasn't in a sanction and the transcript well actually shows you everybody knew that was coming right but even so i think it's it's yes and he decided to strictly apply the rule which under the circumstances resulted in a sanction like dissolves it resulted in the dismissal of the adversary proceeding yes now everybody knew that that was the inevitable rule all right the rationale was that the pretrial order provided that declarations and evidence had to be submitted and furnished to the other side ten court days prior to the trial date and which are not gala in turn had to submit his declarations in evidence five court days prior to the trial date counsel for plaintiff did not comply with that rule and he missed it by six that you got more time to do your stuff or you know people are given more time right well there was an adjustment made but even so mr knocking gallic didn't have the full period of time that he was  his deadline you can can you can you can strike the declarations but what are the other alternatives well continue the trial they sort of look because the local rule though that which is which makes it a little bit different setting a trial for a u s senior judge if he says judge ford or judge dorian takes this war very seriously there's no question that that went so in your view this was not  in response to anything that happened in the bankruptcy but rather the the court's consistent part of the court's consistent practice yes there's no doubt about that i've been practicing in front of klein for probably sixteen years and i have never dared not meet that deadline because i know that i don't want to find out what the consequences are well that i have a conflict practice is different from court to court let me ask you this why do you think and then when we look at it on appeal the local rules don't bind us weren't we're looking at the rules of bankruptcy procedure and this is something that certainly the local courts are authorized to do but it's a little bit different when the pretrial order it told counsel to follow the local rule and the decision of the great gurgly which we cited in our second brief one ten f third fourteen forty eight which is a decision of this court from papers in this file to the labor department are they actually applauded in the way he was trying to enforce the immigration laws and the expedited these papers and got him a green card if if we approved what the which claim and and other unpaid wages claimed there and then on the day on the eve of the trial it did at least linger went through the entire litigation process in the superior court march twenty fourth  thousand and three monday was to be the trial date after numerous extensions the different acts are in that case and on march twenty first at four pm just about five ten minutes before the court closed in sacramento they changed the floor i'm filing or one or two or two of the labor court also come into play when they are not paid on that or that of course it's my sole assuming there is no traveling statute your client is owed somewhere in the neighborhood of one hundred thousand dollars plus client believe you have a claim the tort aspect of which exceeds the value of any wages due yes your honor several times as a matter of fact that wasn't true i understand correctly under the terms of the plan let's say  take this case back to san francisco superior court and you prevail both on the way just that or do hundred thousand dollars or whatever plus attorney's fees plus costs plus you winning judgments based on counsel represented to the court in his argument that the plan provides that your client has to be paid over time the full amount of whatever he recovers in his claim is that your understanding not everybody else here and you did it without authorization i mean there's a there there are rules about this about how you propose these kinds of plans and i can understand why the bankruptcy judge kind of sat with your the way you have you proposed your case i waited for four dollars one day in doing which in order to option of a used pontiac grand am four thousand dollars and forty five thousand and forty five dollars the court spent like an hour and a half talking about the auctioning of a pontiac we're talking about submitting exhibits and witness list consistent with the local rule i would explain to the court by referencing the record in this particular case experience is limited to this case this case you cannot in good faith tell the panel that you have experience with judge coyne instances in which he has not strictly enforced this particular rule is correct  that there's some cash flow problem statistics but there were no cash flow problems for me when i was judge carson went through the records and identified numerous instances of lack of correspondence between the truth and the approaching the size of your clients they were all over twenty thousand dollars twenty five thousand all of them combined would be about a hundred plus thousand dollars now but you think your clients or one hundred thousand plus attorneys fees plus x rated problem if they keep paying insiders like this they would that is the reason i said if they keep paying the insiders they will never have a cash their business your honor is the they send out an end to employ how to work in the field and the employees generate let us thank you for your argument rebuttal thank you to address a couple of points that the panel raised there was a reference to the concept of taking the keys back to san francisco i don't know that that's a viable possibility the case was initially filed in san francisco the law of course but it wouldn't automatically go back to san francisco and that and that's just a point i wanted to make secondly council circulated the plan and his plan and disclosure statement in violation of section eleven twenty five b of the bankruptcy code it wasn't in violation of the specific order of judge klein it was simply that he noticed a hearing on his disclosure statement and plan and set it out to everybody before it had been approved and that's a mortal sin in the bankruptcy world because you you can extend your disclosure statement out until after it's been approved it right but i think i not the creditors are required to live with however if a creditor wants to have a plan considered either at the same time as the veterans planned or fire the debtor's plan they've got to get it on file and if they don't get it on file by the time that the debtor's plan is moving forward the court is not required to slow down the debtor's plan in order to allow them both to go on the same track these two plans were on different tracks and the debtor's plan got confirmed before anybody ever got to the point of considering the merits of the debtors plan and of course you can only have one confirmed plan in that case motions and the transcript of the of the hearing on that motion we never filed any response of pleadings to his motion because he did it on short time it was filed in kane and then it came up for hearing under the courts under the local rule a different local rule that says that you can set a matter on fourteen days notice and if a party opposes it all they have to do the show up and typically a briefing schedule is set and mr nakagawa walked into the hearing on april ninth two thousand and three i think it was and that i think we need to set a briefing schedule because we're going to oppose the motion to dismiss and it was combined with a motion for relief from the automatic state and what judge kline did was he he solved the problem which was that mr sarma wanted to get his case to trial and so right there in court he gave the option of removing the case and bringing it to the bankruptcy court because he could get it on he could do a trial faster than the superior court and because of that he then just basically denied the pending motion because it would work out that the case would come to bankruptcy court and would continue in bankruptcy court so we've never had an opportunity to conte