know really the issue is pretty simple it comes out of the rusher cotta and it really comes down to the first element is to the effect of this consolidation once the default in the other case the case that window world has filed against the hamptons such side so if we look at that that the vacating of that the fault judgment when the world takes a position that it was conditional upon the hamptons paying the expenses of window world as ordered by judge stark and but i mean if you look at that order it certainly says that it is unequivocal he set aside and that he will war those costs and when my clients could not pay those co then you know that final judgment had to do with the hamptons kind of it has to be the same claim we wouldn't even be within the world of race judicata right well i think it's got the same circus and i wish you'd address my question which is what difference does terminology make when the underlying problem is that this issue had been resolved as a result of your client's default your client then failed to pay the sanction that was levied is a condition of lifting the default was what difference does it make whether we call it  because i don't believe the law of the case judge does away with my client's claims of there are huge i mean i think you're going to have a bilateral breach in this case and i just don't see why you're not addressing my question if you think there is some material difference between the issue resolved in the default and the current issue then raised judicata would not block the current issue but you are conceding that race judicata if it  to world that we allege occurred earlier then and there perhaps but certainly you know i really don't have a clear answer for that judge because i i don't think there is one i mean i don't think i've not seen any case anywhere that comes close to to any fact pattern that this case presents and it really caused a lot of concern for me in the underlying case and and you know it's one of those where as  trial lawyer or worth trying to do things on the fly we're trying to do it correctly and you know as it is tries we might it doesn't always work but but if we just believe the consolidation takes away the by the district court was willing to set aside that order condition on the payment of these the payment of fees never happened and so the december order was reinstated and i really can't emphasize that point enough that the december order was reinstated that had the effect from the date that it was originally entered it fully read it fully and finally resolved all claims as all parties in the party litigation in granting the motion to dismiss the district court recognize and held that the december fourth default judgment is a final judgment and earlier action and said that it might the first element of i should have they have been parties in their brief don't address this point at all other than a few conclusory sentences that say the december fourth order can't be a final order because it was vacated that it again fundamentally orders ignores the point that it was reinstated because of this i don't think that th court needs to look any further than the august fifth order reinstating the default for the district court was perfectly clear what it intended to do it said that it reinstated the default the clerk was directed to reinstate the default judgment and that's in fact what happened because of this the court doesn't even need to reach the consolidation issue  but there again i think it's it's clear from the district court orders that the judge exercised will forty to a discretion to consolidate the cases soley for discovery all the way through the time that the consolidation order was entered in april until the time that the fight was reinstated it was clear that the cases were joined simply for discovery because of that the final order in the prior action is the final order  final or in a prior case is the final judgment and it is not affected by the fact that the second case honors thank you ms groom anything further mr foreman not much to reply to ok thank you very much the case is taken under advisement and