the first case for argument this morning is the suburban teamsters pension fund against each company and quite a lot of other entities beginning with the letter e defendant's right to a copy of the complaint they don't have anything to do with pretty litigation notices not a thing is there anything you have that bridges the gap between  notices from one party to another and for due process claim if i made by the time the notice was given the party said when in litigation i think for a year or more in a slightly different through quire and parties that had been locked in litigation certainly here for a couple of years so so yes i think it's reached i think it's all part of the same event whether it's one case leads to the third case and the second to least the fourth case i think the notice is required to a other do i think nature you have any legal authority for that proposition i don't have anything other than what i cited your  has to do with personal jurisdiction it's a concept that applies in litigation has nothing to do with pre litigation activity you without using these words are you are you arguing that the provisions of our recess here are unconstitutional because i think your adversary is going to say what happened here was pretty straightforward you know there was a notice of withdraw liability sent multiroom poirier pension plan it went to the participants circumstances where the union knows who the defendants are and where they are as they did here in the cases that were cited  where they got us i mean at that point where they completely dissolved her physically large they still in existence for purposes of receiving notice because they still had to have an agent right after rights to receive notice i mean explain no doubt about that right so what happens before they give you a statutory one yes that's there is no rule that in a litigation service to want to service to all that it that's the that's true the kind of the rule here is the rule with respect to the statutory notice required for withdraw liability and it does clear that under the liability now further with respect to any argument that the notice would be insufficient under the control group notice notice to one its notice fall of this withdraw liability notice and mr grumley was the registered agent for certain of the entities involved in this case and that in the district court collection matter had represented not only him to the corporate defendants but also individual defendants where it's fairly clear that there was some form of actual notice and certainly of the type of notice that w parties on notice that there is something going on that the withdrawal liability action is is being commence then with respect to the argument that somehow the content of the notice was insufficient in this court's decision in el it's basically determined that all that's needed to greg are the statutory procedure for withdraw liability is that the notice contained the amount of withdraw liability the schedule of payments a demand for payment and it sent the employer each of these was satisfied in this matter and there is no requirement under the statute or under due process that there be some signal that individual liability could occur the notice in this case was statutorily sufficient and because the notice was sufficient in this case it was served up on the requisite parties we believe the judgment of the district court in this matter should be a that we look at here and the one sided primarily by the union all go to formulate and offer to the court excuses