and then later on they went to the state court and they found more clearly and they sent more documents that were sent we've already sent all the documents and de ok so back in two thousand and fourteen i had i had i have bought a house for three million and then eight million in the state of california and we sent that and then they never filled out in the court system until i went to the state and then they told me they explained to me more clearly that i had to send more paperwork so they needed to explain more about what was happening  that i understand i b m made to him under the original settlement agreement did he accept that money the lawyer told me that i had to accept the money money i don't have the money no i never sent it back and judge gratuity this case from the very beginning through the orders that mr wang is now contesting is there something in particular that he thinks judge has overlooked i understand his argument to be that had he known about the proposed nd order that he  think give me one second i'm not understanding that very clearly would you be able to explain it further let me try again judge for chad he is the only district court judge who has issued rulings in this case but i understand that mr is arguing that there's something judge machete overlooked that had he known about another submission by mr wang that he would have ruled otherwise what is it that he thinks judges are to be overlooked or didn't know about the nd paper said i sent to the district court i don't know if they filed that in the court system so i went the case proceeded and i'm not sure if they were they were still there or not so it's the nd paperwork that i sent i'm not sure of they accepted them or not but doesn't judge for to know about those because he brought i don't know i mean i sent them and i filled them out and the court system i don't know after that i did send them in i don't know where they went or where they were process ok thank you very much that's all i have was that i b m was willing to settle your case for two hundred and seventy million dollars that amount of money is far greater many times greater than your salary and i and i  and you had a thing to explain to the court be yes when i read that that it was sexual harassment and i want one hundred and thirty four million and then i let them know i let my lawyer i told him you know and they said ok i understand and then they proceeded with that and then when i got this summit that more money and then he wanted you know he said more more money he said three million dollars that's and then that was what the judge had that three million dollars and then so it was a small and they won it big there was a miscommunication there with the judge because the judge was wanted to increase the amount and then mediators that lower three million lower it's not you know we're not going to accept that that number and that was processed so that was a miscommunication there a misunderstanding there in the b motion to vacate a decision enforcing the party settlement agreement for the following reason one his motion is untimely to the e mails that form the basis for the motion are not  discovered evidence under will sixty two and three mr wang fail to demonstrate grounds for relief under any other subsection sixty day well sixty they provide a mechanism for extraordinary judicial record release available only if the party demonstrates exceptional circumstances exceptional circumstances simply do not exist here first the motion is on timely because he was not justifiably ignorant of the document at the time the motion to enforce this breach and more significantly the documents would not have changed the outcome but her study subsequently received and three a similarly applicable because there's no allegation that i b m or its counsel engaged in misconduct that substantially interfered with mr lang ability to present any evidence and again at this point all evidence reviewed by just setting earlier judgment that's been reversed or vacated or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable and clearly those circumstances do not exist here finally whereas here parties sixty being motion is premised on to changes that are required to implement the result that were intended by the court and the order of difficulty or accurately reflects the court's decision on the motion to force in this court to the firm the district court decision denying ok well my lawyer didn't know about the specifics of sixty the lawyer didn't know about that and i can say that there in that fact that you know we didn't know about that order and the lawyer didn't know the process of what was going on so there was a mistake and they didn't know when they were filling out that paperwork being didn't have any idea to the district court never made a decision on the nd when we bought the house and we proved that they never made the general ask the stick or to release that and to make it clear and so that is that is my argument is the due process there was something was missing of the federal court the never heard my oral argument depending on my on the miscommunication of the lawyer and then the state the sticker court heard mine clearly they wrote down what they said and their opinion was clear because they had already heard my my my arguments but they never heard the federal court never heard only what was on paper and made that decision that was that was made