automatic stay is one of the fundamental protections under the bankruptcy yesterday were in what might be a world record time for the st question can i can i get something out as well there's an issue here that was not part of the today from from our viewpoint you know one could make a distinction between the kind of common law issues on proton power i think the supreme court was trying to address in that roman catholic archdiocese versus we see on  versus a statutory power to know withstand a but i don't want to if you intend to argue the issue i want to make sure that it's out there and we consider whether we need for example to let people you know file something about an but the automatic thing is one of the fundamental protections under the bankruptcy code the automatic stay implements two primary goal it permit it prevents the dissipation of assets of the state and it enables the debtor to avoid a multipl icity of claims against the state in different for relief from state to proceed with litigation and in a not a bankruptcy or can be granted by the bankruptcy court for far was not defined in in utah there are two polar opposite situation when it comes to speaking of relief from stated with a lawsuit in a non bankruptcy or there are those situations where the non bankruptcy action is on the verge of trial and the debtor is the primary defendant and there are those situations where the action is only recent as only recently been filed and the debtor is not the primary  you counsel i agree with you i think that there are typical situations but is there any scenario where did this particular claim doesn't have to be liquidated someplace before class upon for me in need after the claim was filed there were objections to the platform there were there was a motion to dismiss by the trustee so on and so forth but the claim that was file as the court notes from the record was a zero claim the claim was in a zero amount of the claim because in an amount that was larger than zero then the debtor would have had two options the debtor could have need you may believe your client is one of the lesser defendants in the you know the plaintiff a moving party or may believe otherwise i mean isn't that a minute my the most important thing to do here is the less somebody liquidate back claim with some speed and that and i mean is there any scenario which this claim is going to get liquidated into bankruptcy court i have a hard time imagining one ok thank you your honor thank you for pointing that out st of all if you take a look at the state relief motion itself and you look at the declaration in support of the states there are there are three primary grounds for relief from say one of them is movement seeks recovery primarily from rd party if you read the complaint itself yes there are six defendants but if you look at the timeline involved in the complaint the debtor came in toward the end of that time the demo was not presen t at the club where they where the where the parties were initially met and where they spent a significant amount of time the debtor only came in much later at a time you know i think now you're arguing about the merits of the claim and i don't think that's really what this motion is about is about where the claim should be litigated so i think you should focus your your time on that question ok and should be litigated the bank the board the bankruptcy court and if this is not a situation where you need a specialized dr unil or a judge d who specialized knowledge there are three cause of action problem that wouldn't cause a problem your honor because the district court would be more than capable of handling it one of the do you want three courts to handle this you want one court in the state court to handle the at the co defendants you want that sort of thing the issues relating to mr merriman are very very narrow in comparison to the others and he's still going to be involved in that litigation i mean you just made the point it isn't going to get him they're going to be able to do discovery as to him in the state courts and now he's going to be subject to discovery in two courts maybe three they're going to be able to call him as a witness in the state court this not to be stay violet if i mean i just even from the apply for specter of it sounds like it's coming what the discovery is that is bought from the debtor it would be it could be very very limited ok i did take take that maybe that's true maybe it isn't but what the bankruptcy judge tried to do here was asked that kind of a practical question what's the most practical way to resolve this and why why was this decision ronnie and i think you have you have another way you would have liked him to do it but what about this was error i mean did this traffic cop function i think is an extremely practical one and obvious if you if you look at the transcript from the hearing the substantive portion of the hearing is a paragraph but if you look and then what happens is the order get lost and there's an objection and then you have the border itself which has another step but there really are no windings and with one can really understand what the bankruptcy thinking and how the banks of the clearly this matter needs to be remanded on that basis alone d i mean there was really there were there was no tentative ruling there were no findings of fact there if you look at some of the opinions for example in curtis judge allen had an evidentiary hearing and then and then d made his ruling in some of the retroactive relief cases for example judge wilson issued an opinion where over your five minutes so you can keep talking over there reserved please ok thank you all right mr the south that thank you your honors i this was an entire area that i wasn't very familiar with however we tried to take all the correct steps initially to all this motion and seek also a nomad on the discovery of the bankruptcy proceeding i think that in this particular circumstance the statements by the court indicate that it indeed did do a balancing and indicated that judicial economy and the fact of the remote of all parties here involve were some prevalent reasons to find the cause existed here and one of the issues that was addressed by my declaration to the motion was the fact that the claimant here is a no particular hurry go and collect the judgment against this debtor it's a question of wanting to make a finding of facts and conclusions of law with respect to aspects that will then be potentially issue preclusion collateral estoppel in the bankruptcy case  we proffered without even trying to argue otherwise just the motion of the outset that we will return and get the bankruptcy courts confirmation through what now i understand to be an adversary proceeding if we get that finding if not merriman suffers no great prejudice here in having that case done it's not a case where it's going to have to spend hundreds of one thousand dollars on experts it's a question of some of the factual developments that will be determined in that case through witness testimony depositions and written discovery this is a discretionary finding here and the court clearly it seems from the record exercise that discretion and did so  analyzing the facts that were presented to great pains and making sure that it was very particular with the objections i tried to clarify the ordering of it due to the multiple document you had to fall for it but took great pains to make sure that made findings to allow this implicitly that in their view of the world this could go forward in some other core except as against mr merriman as a defendant and that would be somehow less prejudicial to him and it would be figured out by some other court in my in possibly the bankruptcy court as to mr merriman maybe later or maybe concurrently i'm assuming you would argue that would be highly prejudicial to the case that you want to try someplace i mean i think it would i think they'd be issue you know i'd have to double the research this but i think there issues where i would have my able to then follow a separatist record action at this stage given the fact of the statue imitations what if passed would there be a relation back situation in that scenario if i filed in the district court i don't think the bankruptcy court is i mean the bankruptcy court is what's the implication of that i will be frank i i was contacted by about three different sets of attorneys america's behalf within the week of filing i understood from reason some some guides that i needed to at least for now that i was aware the bankruptcy case put in a claim filing for my client but it wasn't a liquidated one because we haven't gone to judgment so as far as i understood it i was supposed to quote down a blank in that form does not indicate a dollar amount because i had no idea what that dollar amount would be until it was liquidated because i mean the exclusive amount of damages here that would be found in a state court action would be soley on a non economic basis which would mean that i have no even economics to be panel for the th circuit has been indicated that they're not exclusive factors and they are things that can be applied and determined without having to specifically set there and say well curse factor number one was what i did  the court did that here the court had great experience in this field and this area of law and knew what those factors were i'm sure you've heard thousands of these type of motions worth curtis factors or or what not and he is describing the fact that judicial economy and multiple parties was a primary factor as for the norman issue i just want to speak to that for a moment a big aspect of the decoration that i thought was supplemental declaration the evidentiary value of that was to show that there really was no knowledge of this bankruptcy and to seek the enormous provisions for that purpose given what's actually torie languages and so while the bankruptcy court may not have specifically articulated that on the record at the hearing in looking the proposed order and knowing what they had already as evidence surely facts and law presented to it it made the determination that a norman was appropriate as has been you know five numerous or you know scenarios  ok and as you know now relief from stay you know really has a very limited in korea it's not intended to judge the merits of whatever is behind the motion so you know the fact that a lawsuit was filed is a know i think i'm hearing what you're saying from that angle of the ghauts the angle that we would expect a bankruptcy court correct and we were in no way insisting that the bankruptcy court needed to make anything needs or that at that stage of its i don't question at that point about the underlying dispute correct i mean you know i did hear opposing counsel start talking about the merits in going through the complaint as though now it's a time line that they want to sign off on and they did get attached to the complaint with its text message and everything to their decoration and or their opposition but notwithstanding all of that it really was just a question of who are the allegations there and the parties that are going to be involved procedurally are those things that are going to factor into what's the best form to figure these things out right thank you thank you and i really don't have much else to say other than to answer any questions if there are any additional ones just at the time line you found out about this and you live contacted by a number next set a couple days later and now mr bear's been handling it since then while the mystery men i think just follow a separate action somewhere else there is everything that i read was act as promptly as you could i thought better since i did make a couple of potential errors in my lack of bankruptcy knowledge but we got it filed within seven days of having the complaint returned and having contact my opposing counsel which you know we were hopeful that that was a good showing that we were intent on making sure that we didn't overstep anywhere or prejudiced the debtor in any kind of way without having the adequate relief given by the bankruptcy court  bankruptcy court would have exclusive jurisdiction over that sure you could you could try and litigate these things in state court the only cause of action by the way there's three of them negligence wouldn't work for willful and militias and the drug dealer liability act although it is really kind of a new one the claim seems to be a something that's designed to go back drug dealers and really has nothing to do with the other so the only the only cause of action here out of the three would be the battery claim and having been involved in many many cases came down from state or the bankruptcy court will have to get involved so just tailor your lead going to have to if you allow this to go lack of jurisdiction to liquidate a claim for personal injury here we would be revealing the merits of a personal injury claim in a non disclosure ability cause that arrives and you think that's in order to get relief thank you very much for your argument we appreciate the arguments of us parties in this matter will be submitted thank you