your honors my clients are chapter thirteen debtors who moved to vacate a state judgment and a claims objection before the bankruptcy court and the bankruptcy court dismissed the motion based on rocker feldman the bigger c court refused to apply this court's and bank opening in two thousand and grunts vs the county of los angeles and that holding a political to our case is that the bankruptcy court when it's acting in a core proceeding as original and exclusive jurisdiction to avoid a state judgment in fact the grants decision goes so far as to say that congress is grant of power is a plenary power to rule in a core proceeding independently and separately from the in our case the bigger a few court in its decision acknowledged that appellant's motion constituted a claims objection however the bankruptcy court distinguished the holding in cases such as gripes and sas on versus sokol off on grounds that those cases involved substantive rights under the bankruptcy code such as creditor was asserting particular substance of rights in a non just charge ability proceeding however our position is that the claims objection that we brought is a core proceeding in a chapter thirteen case and as such the bigger of c court is dealing with the debtors the bankruptcy debtors substantive rights under the bankruptcy comes though when you talk about your claim objection the one thing i know i don't understand from this record is my understanding is that  well no that is the critters claim it's only that there's a procedure in bankruptcy for the debtor to file the claim on behalf of the creditor once the creditors deadline to file passes and the reason for that your honor is that the one of the goals of bankruptcy is to allow the debtor to bring all of his debts into the one proceeding so that all all debts that were existing that are there are considered pre partition debts well what i'm getting at is though i understand all that but still you file the claim because you aren't your own to get t claim in the bankruptcy case whether the creditor files are proof of claim or not it's a claim in the in the bankruptcy case because it's one of the debts one of the pre partition debts that the creditor i know we have it in our brief so as to give me a moment to find that your honor in our in our opening brief looks like piece twenty five of our d brief and if it's ok with the court let's see well we cited the statute and the federal rules of bankruptcy procedure and we have a nd circuit case your honor on page twenty six of our brief in re chateau gay corp the primary purpose of section five hundred and one is to ensure that all those involved in the proceeding will be made aware of the claims against the debtors and four empower the debtor to create an actual controversy by filing a proof of claim on behalf of the creditor and then turning around an opposing allowance of the claim that the debtor filed on behalf of the credit think it's a case or controversy yes that and the for the united states code section fifty dollars on and also the federal rules of think of the procedure yes but the rules say nothing about doing both your interpretation but the rules don't say that well i don't have the rule in front of me but i think that's what it says that's why we cited it there your honor i think that's why i mean it's already a claim in the case but the purpose of allowing the debtor to file the proof of claim is so that it can be brought into it before the court and the court can administer it and one of the ways the court can minister is if the debtor allowed to file that objection and the rules do allow that the the debtor to object to any claim and i have a right if i may proceed your honor sure i only have a couple not get to any feldman analysis we don't get to any question of defacto appeal or inextricably intertwined and the reason i say that is when you look at the two thousand and five decision from the united states supreme court exxon mobile you don't see inextricably intertwined as part of the court's holding the court left that part out you don't see the words to fucked o p l we don't have a defacto appeal in this case because we have the congressional branch of jurisdiction that's independent six it's explicitly granted to the bankruptcy court and so you don't get to the question of the fact to appeal but even if you did we aren't alleging an injury from the judgment or alleging an injury from the a pelleas failure to serve the proper kind of notice and that's what led to a state court not having subject matter jurisdiction and they also argue violation of due process of law but what we're saying is you don't get to a state court judgment this would not be the st time of the th circuit actually rejected avoid st judgment and we we cited the case of stark versus stark on page forty four dollars of our opening brief and that's when the night circuit found its own it's not presidential but it's it i have to give it we don't need to get bogged down in what that effect would be because this case is going up on appeal through the state court process at least twice and no state court judge is going to say here is as we come forward with any doubt as to what do this is would judge nd the purpose for allowing a debtor to file the proof of claim is not to deal with the claim and get rid of that happens automatically because it'll be discharged when the debtor gets there just the purpose opportunity to bootstrap their way into federal jurisdiction over a claim that really doesn't belong in the federal court rule on the point that the mr michel is making now namely that that that the state court i get the state trial court for the or the or the unlawful detainer court  acted in excess of his jurisdiction they did not they ruled that it did not act in excess of its jurisdiction they rule on that specific point i believe the appe necessary to its rule and that included a finding that it had jurisdiction one other thing concerning subject matter jurisdiction unlike the federal courts where there is a case or controversy requirement and you i have a procedural question this is coming up to us on review of the rule sixty motion that it makes it's my understanding that the same issue is now raised as part of an adversarial proceeding in the bankruptcy case is that correct i believe it will and i'm hopeful that mr mishra what was brief that we don't have to keep coming back to court on the same argument again and again and again and just so that i'm clear the jurisdiction argument is about whether proper notice was provided right that's correct and the state court made a finding ruling against the rails is when the question of whether service was proper they made a factual finding that service was proper the state in the bankruptcy court your clients proceed to under rule sixty b in there's a question there as to whether that's an appropriate validated by the state court appellate system and if a state court would give it full faith and credit then the bankruptcy court has to give it the same full faith and credit that there's no exception in the bankruptcy code for the full faith and credit statute and having to comply with i think for them mr jenkins you know i'll answer i'll try to answer any other questions the panel has otherwise i don't have any pearls of wisdom for you i think it's a bad decision says it all and is a very well written decision it covers the record the bankruptcy appellate panel in our district does a very good job of handling cases and before you will i would encourage you to just read the bab decision again and i think you will see that they were absolutely correct