of docket entries for the cases or multiplication etc i would like to please summarize very quickly how we got into this situation and your honor i am not a lawyer but i have a master's degree in computer science and i just started a business in japan trying to help u s companies get into japan and i had this degree from seattle washington so there is a company in seattle but the main company that carried on the best miss was in japan so after about three years the relationship with the security company rather but even though they approved of bogan gate they did not want to pay the rates that bogun gates charged so what ended up happening was that they would pay according to their rates which were half or less and they would also strike off various items as unnecessary and it's kind of like getting reimbursed you know him or something delayed and partial payments and so on business had to make up the difference so even though we had this insurance st paul never appointed attorneys from the insurance side they only said their acceptance of tender meant that they would pay for these independent attorneys unfortunately in one thousand nine hundred forty to choose counsel i do not remember seeing any specific language i and reversed the findings that did not even give a chance to amend those cravings i think those pleadings were struck out not based on good law and as a matter of  law on the basis of facts in the complaint that should go forward i would like you to please reassigned this case to a different judge and if you find it appropriate and in the insurance case i would like you to keep that case in the district court and consolidated with the mediation case so that you can all proceed together that is my goal and a lottery briefly outline my and st paul stepped in and your reservation of right correct yes right there was discovery taken in that lawsuit and st paul believe that some of that discovery revealed that the x q e d was complaining of did not occur st paul and the japanese company q e d it's a california company are ok and that resulted in a settlement in which st paul paid money to q e d and the pain they release for my way of bringing in new evidence i thought that there was new everything since the filing of the first notice of removal and my understanding is that in a federal jurisdiction matter when you remove you are constrained to the evidence at the time of removal so when that is still in dispute if new evidence comes there is no way to put it before the federal court you're now inside of ten minutes of your time you folks can use it as you wish but you're into the ten minutes you said you're going to else on this one you're on your own or going into the mediation i wanted my day in court to prove that the claims of creative rocker wrong under california law my understanding your honor is that the insurance company should give a chance for the insured to take over the they can come and say we're paying all these defense cost we're going to settle for this if you don't like it then release us because then we will not be responsible for your case anymore they didn't they did it secretly and that is  when mr silver money was trying to set up was a major issue in this are the sanctions and we were going to show those sanctions and bring it back to the other issues the underlying issues and that made hi other cases to federal district court based on a federal question he was sanctioned for well those are the two main things and one of the part of the russian oil for the sanctions was attempting to remove a second counsel was kind enough to make their own chronology we had our own but it was too expensive to distribute when mr silverman ian attempted to remove it the first time he was told that there was no corporate counsel it didn't work out that to the ninth circuit previously and mr subramanian attempted to bring it here but that died in motion and was considered a motion for reconsideration and ended there i don't know where the on bank reference came from those are those and yes he did look at that and how he looked at that or at least made an effort we probably would have appealed that they were made in good faith there wasn't any gain in the attempt to burden this court i believe the law of the court used the matter still in limbo and i believe that's also in the order so one of those is still there because i don't know if the search certification of the remand made it through all the way so i think there's one still this kind of stuck still compounding another matter should mr some remain attempt to remedy this and i have a minute left is that correct ok on hold i threw a bottle ok thank you who wants to start on the other side please the court douglas young propel the randall wolfe the appeal tell you going to divide our time equally but there was no substantive argument made on any of the issues as to wolf and so with the understanding and given the rules of advocacy and to make no argument as to the substance  the docket in the various cases and outlines i think nicely how we get here and some of the issues that underline and support judge walker's sanctions in this case by our count and you'll see here as you compare to the docket there were five removal efforts here there were at least three improper appeals from remained orders they were improper under twenty eight u s c fourteen forty seventy  are approximately six hundred or so docket entries in total and approximate approximating two hundred s so in this case alone this is not a situation in reality of a pro se defendant who is in any pro se defendant if you look at the excerpt of record page one and following you will see that he has always employed many lawyers major law firms on occasion international law firms on occasion he has always had  at one attorney at his side and at least two attorneys throughout the litigation in federal court here if you look at the record the supplemental excerpts of record at exhibit asks you will see the manner in which he refers to himself his e mail address is pro se defendant at yahoo dot com we submit that this is a reflection of the fact that this has become something of an avocation for him a something that is inappropriate at every level the case at this point has resulted in attacks on two district court judges a state court judge a some of the counsel here some of mr super medians own counsel mr wolf and the thousand dollars against mr sowerby seven mania for improper removal are both are both sanctions at five thousand dollars against defend against that removal so that's twenty thousand and seventy eighty three of the attorney's fees and addition the court found that the second removal with which was the removal that took place in against thousand dollars against a tech and five thousand against council west because by the time the second removal occurred there was no action pending in state court to be removed and any turning this has practiced in federal court should know that the first removal removes the state court of jurisdiction from the case and that's why the court found that removal was in bad faith so those and  fund the prosecution of the action because in this view the policy did not cover ultimately these things went to mediation in mediation the suit was settled with q da for half a million dollars half a million dollars and as part of that all these the individual in the company but they were left free to pursue their own claims if they wanted settlement agreement provided that th understands what continues to be pending the only thing that is presently pending is the declaratory relief faction in state court now that action was removed three times  court and judge walker in his decision decided that under the colorado river case the court would abstain the court's order provides that that case will go back to state court it will ordered to attend he could not show any justifiably reliance and therefore he couldn't show any fraud and the last thing i want to say your honor is that mr sevan remaining challenges so paul did hear saint paul under the herberts case which as i cited in our priest has an absolute right under his policy to settle the case without any interference with from the insured and that's where they get it got him complete release and why is he complaining he's only complaining because i think because of settlement that case precluded him from using the money that st paul was paying him in this counsel to thank you your honor may it please the court i am william connell and i represent respondents q e d inc in q e d japan k k i would like to clarify although mr being may have already done so the settlement of  for the proposition that q a d is libel to them in any manner for settling the lawsuit against them and essentially that's the simple case with respect to q eight whether or not they have any claims against st paul whether st paul fulfilled  obligations or not is a matter of no moment to the q a d party herve it's make this clear as mr green in said that st paul had the right to settle the case but even if it's found that they didn't comply with  their requirements under her visits there is nothing in her visit or in any other case that suggests that the settling party that is the plaintiffs in the underlying action have any liability to the insured for having settled the case dismissed their claims we did everything that was required by the settlement agreement and that's it and that's when the other questions thank you for your argument you have a little bit of time for  decision st paul was the defendant think paul sent a letter st paul had control of the defense so they were paying for the defense and they were controlling the defense they sent a letter to her ex's saying you can take over the defen second you were told when you came in here that you'd be held to the same rules as any lawyer who walked in here the time constraints are quite all yours and i'm going to give you one minute one minute on the clock please this and i promise you  disrespect i'm doing my best i became a defendant and i if i didn't defend i get default judgment now i have the sanctions announced and q e d has taken the position that the sanctions amount are not covered by the  agreement so there is no new case but there's these sanctions and i had to become posting in two thousand to because i couldn't afford the lawyers and so i had a choice i could walk away or i could proceed to try to defend myself i have tried to do my best and if i have come up short then i apologize so under the herberts decision there is no right for st paul to settle i did not want them to settle because they took