bad faith must be reversed the only ruling in respect in this respect to date is that the stop notice procedure in those key construction was unconstitutional identified a single obligation it barred quote commencing a prosecuting any action affecting the proceeds of the policy here though that did not occur that actual purpose traditional case like national union which he joined prosecuting actions affecting the proceeds of the policy the injunction here barred quote filing any proceedings against plain obligation they were playing different tracks independently of one another obligation or as disinterested stakeholder a p m them is not required to determine the status of a construction under either section eighty five seventy one thirty one  and the same principle applies now when it comes to enforcement which is according to leave versus west coast life quote the purpose of the inner pleader statute was to give the stakeholder protection but viewed the question the exact source of mcmillan pitches liability to which travelers is referred is unclear now here the district court in mississippi used the evidence you're hearing found that it was unable to resolve favor of a pm resolving that question needs to be based on the four corners of the injunction this is the flip side of the rule in mine workers v or as the original complaint indicated that it was included in the unpaid amount of that indebtedness was alleged to be two hundred sixty thousand four hundred ten dollars and fifteen cents since doing that wasn't barred by the four corners an injunction there is no contempt independent liabilities being claimed until unless there's a question of rights to the fun and all of that argument like oh law as in pages eighty one fifty seven eighty one sixty one of the record  but the point i want to underscore is that aping and the california court to decide those defenses despite there being no determination in mississippi concerning any rights another test that's in the second photo from two differences in their how soon as we go and she creations which rejected it regardless the due process violation is the same no matter if you call it a lien or an attachment or stop notice or whatever if it interferes motions requesting that the inner peter be dismissed and the phones be distributed to expeditiously no one takes his argument recognize this when it said you have to distribute the money to may because the stop notice has been declared unconstitutional the only basis that was holding the money therefore it has to be distributed the court said no while we have see it when we have recognized that the stop notice is unconstitutional him construction as your subcontractor still has your unpaid subcontractor still has an equitable right and therefore still has an adverse claim to the money not an independent not an adverse claim and  the court no attacks on the council on opposite stated that no attacks repeatedly asked the court for determination of whether or not it had any rights in the fun would have been entitled to the money would constructions equitable planning have prevailed or not that does not the fact that there was a moment in no the material handling and stop notice took the alternative positions as this court noted in footnote one of it's of the twenty fifteen opinion it took alternative positions either were o violation of the interpreter injunction a general contractor who might two thousand dollars and that the nineteen thousand was in a pleated and it was released the discharge the general contractor was discharged generalised asked to the nineteen thousand the issue in that case of course was go away there's this other public bond out there for the general contractor was protected under a public bo he's engaged for bob january twenty third to no attacks have filed seven motions that ask the court insisted that the lower court distribute the inner peter fantino attacks as thousand dollars under the settlement king construction took one when i'm not and i believe the way that the settlement was we're going to split evenly but she they agreed that instead those arguments will be relevant to the second stage of enter plea or when the court determines in respect to various things people want a b m m other than just told the court that there was never any question that it was a disputed that they were the prevent this case well the attacks are till the court the answer to that if there are independent debts the injunction can be enforced where the amount of the funds this efficient to pay both debts otherwise the injunction is limited to the b time in september of two thousand and twelve when the lawsuit was filed in california no money was on deposit anywhere it wasn't clear that there would be money deposited again to como group sued and at that time alleged that the amount of the interplay or deposit thank all three of you and for that explanation we'll take a brief recess before the third