did appear to all of the parties that there weren't any issues or meaning and it was no two i'm not asking did it appear as i understood the representations made to the court that this takes care of all the dependents on summarising now yes that was me no dependents left no claims remain to be decided that was a representation that was made however they are hated representations repeated i'm not sure they were repeated or not i'm back at least one yes that's correct i do believe that this court under this cour final judgment and then they get into the appellate process and the thing and you know this isn't looking good for us let's find us a defendant that we didn't deal with and follow a motion you know months later and take it all back to the district is we've got can't morrison l l c who was certainly named and served service was completed on two separate occasions and then the other matter is that the district court must rule and make the a judgment final and if not there are clear requirements under fifty four dollars under rule fifty four to make a subject to make it a non final judgment of the cases of witherspoon briar grove in meyers cited in our motion to dismiss permits this court to circumvent what is honestly a procedural quagmire that has been created in the district court and it middleby that was and part of palin's responsibility however we think that that results in an issue that's an issue of st impression in front of the circuit and we believe that this court should adopt the d c circuit rationale and mobley which we discussed in our briefing because while there is will be six motions in favor of all defendants except the l l c entity and dismiss all the claims against them including claims of a conspiracy to violate lo  as the record reflects the opinions of the district court and the well that the opinions contain very little by way of analysis of the actual allegations of the complaint which is of course the level of facts necessary to support a claim under louisiana statute that's sons is nearly word for word from dr hill's brief there's one million specific reference to any allegation in the complaint despite the fact that if a complaint itself is replete with additional allegations about dr hill's participation the opinion of the district court on the plaintiff failed to point out any facts regarding when where or how a conspiracy was formed to the defendants the more that the defense agreed to restrain training dental services three that the defendants communicated regarding the restraint of trade or for that the defendant shared a common interest in the restraint of trade but that conclusion ignores numerous allegations right on cluing with those alleged deficiencies in the complaint the district court denied at st doctor visas will be six motion motion was granted on the left the planes that had been dismissed with prejudice and when it was granted that the finding of the court was what the court finds that all of the hay good plaintiffs factual allegations against dr d's including those relating to alleged false and accurate testimony were enter goalie related to the distillery board's investigation and licensing decision involving d good despite the take good payment plaintiffs allegations of malice and unreasonable conduct dr deeds actions fell within the scope of his duties as an independent expert again that finding by the court of s's no familiarity with the actual allegations in the complaint about dr days among others that he made an effort to purchase dr hay goods practice through a business broker during the investigation that he offered to grant immunity to a fact witness that he hired away some of  dr haygood staff and ask for their testimony in the case all of that celebs in the st minute complaint none of that has to do with the bonafide the activities of an expert witness i hope we can agree the task of the district court was to examine the factual allegations in the complaint and those allegations are supposed to be accepted as true and viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff respectfully or honors the district court could not have reached the conclusions that it reached had it done so the court could not conclude that there were no allegations for example of when where or how the conspiracy was formed dates times places participants or alleged in the in the in the pleadings we believe that it's no viewed the defendant as characterizations of the allegations often were babe in a light most favorable to the defendants it inverted the twelve b six standard and that error infects all of the court's decisions with respect to that will be six motions as to the nine hundred and eighty three dollars claims the court mcdonough says that when you have a cause of action for malicious malicious prosecution or false of the case of albums which is alleged here the cruel of the case occurred upon the resolution of the underlying litigation that would have been no earlier than that to suit the supreme court's denial of the ritz on or about december th of two thousand standing alone is improper under rule twelve both because it was earlier than on with prejudice because of the close of the fact of a proper ruling by the state courts the same issue in syria autumn arguments over the same cause of action in one bite after the other two of the six motions independently the court used the wrong had there been nothing else long had this been the st motion the court used the wrong immunity analysis in that case the only an immunity that's available in these cases the losing supreme court in at least three cases has shown the interplay that's a qualified immunity only and the defendant is non entitled to that immunity if he is acting maliciously or without a will it reasonable belief in the propriety as of his actions here the court she's also going to address the substantive issues time permitting for really all of the apollyon to the shortish to all that ever existed i think i'm going to argue that at the the substantive and the jurisdictional portions motion for an extension of an appeal those are not disputed in the record so what happened is they sought a motion for extension on townley when they realized their rule fifty nine had not been timely of appeal would have expired so you are to come and look at these leads sixty days from the judgment basically right you know so you got to you have thirty days to file your notice of appeal you have thirty days from the expiration of that thirty days to follow that motion it is it actually it is twenty one of seven it is mandatory it is jurisdictional it is congressionally created but if there is no final judgment that you have to reach that question or so in an effort to avoid those those two things have not found the notice and not only following the motion exactly chief judge they basically now say well we can defend that because there really never was a final judgment ok it there's a couple issues george just barstow raised one of them but let me say this fortress even assuming judge the one they're arguing to judge that wasn't a final judgment is the february judgment which clearly disposed of the last of plaintiffs camp climes shortly thereafter in april there was an intervention by a fortress in fortress that intervened on some coverage issues guys and they basically were saying and our war fortress had intervened in the suit based on coverage for two of the defendants insurance coverage  assuming it was an interim intergroup lying your honour's was this intervention that was dismissed now there are no claims left for sure so even given the benefit of the doubt to judge as to whether or not the  the february judgment was a final judgment your honor even if we did and i don't definitely discuss what we thought it what we think it's a fall of judgment even if you kind of skip over that analysis there's no question the fortress dismissal was the final in the and thirty three so that was dismissed on april th two thousand and eighteen so even assuming you take their argument that february wasn't final you definitely have this one that was the final on april th twenty eight thing so judge bork still one of the ways they tried to address this and kind of avoid that those late fallings is to say look can't force investigations l l c is still a party that was named in the original complaint and therefore because of that we don't have a fall in judgment because there's still this party hanging out there right and so the problem with that does work still is exactly what you reference there are multiple references and we put those in the brief where the representations were made that there were no remaining claims against any of the parties other than the claim that was still pending under  dietz and of course that's what wouldst decided in february of twenty eight that we had argued the final judgment one of those representations i want to bring to the court's attention is in a joint status report submitted so the joint status reports in the record at page two thousand six hundred and two and just let me set a better in real quick for this came about after multiple judgments because we have about ten defendants and there were multiple judgments over two years over a two year period and so after one of those final judgments in two thousand and sixteen the magistrate asked us to have a status conference and in that status conference he said you all go back and found something that tells me what's left there's been a lot of motion practice lot of judgments party show go back now go back and figure out what's left and i want you to follow a joint status report that status report it actually has camp morrison investigations l l c a nonexistent into t that we think could have never been served never could comply with a bill for five for service because it has no agent service process so it'll be an un served not appearing defend it with any of it they put them in the appearance clause and then in everyone that appeared in this lawsuit signed it something about those elements a rule forty one the plaintiff stipulate an action by entering a stipulation signed by all parties that have appeared all parties that have appeared signed this joint stipulation in this issue i'm sorry yours is disjoint status report and in there what it says is in the in the pellets interactive this year honors and what it says is quote the parties have conferred and believe the plaintiffs so remaining claim not dismissed by the courts various memorandum rulings or and again that was the product of the magistrate saying guys go back and see what you still have and let's come give us a status report so we know what's left and products of that is the plaintiff falling something that judges are still you reference and that's just one of the best just faith in credit analysis that was done by judge hicks where he said look at this we've got two cases we have a stake case going on in this and we've got a federal case going on o the fact that it's not caught a stipulation does not present a problem and the fact that it's doesn't have that formal monitor doesn't offer causing a problem and there's actually a th circuit decision we're not deterred that this was only the dismissal of part of an action because if you judge duncan you're seeing there says dismissing on the action and certainly there have been some courts that said well that means you got dismissed the whole thing and the th circuit rejected that and said it in script and said no it can't be a single portion of the climate can just be one part of his entire action the cordons script also rejected the idea that the dismissal had no fit wasn't it was not a formal stipulation that it would like again didn't have that moniker or it wasn't followed as such and what the court basically says is in that particular instance what the parties had settled and there was apparently a representation to the court that the parties did and the and basically the court the fist circuit said no we can't review that it is appealable you don't mind representations there are no claims against that ari and for that reason we do find that it does not affect the finality of it the next thing on the on the on the can't morrison investigation your honour's that really is because when you consider the fortress decision coming down right after what you jones as in about when you consider the fortress decision come in after the january i mean the february th scene decision it kind of overshadows the need to i guess really determine whether that was a final judgment because you certainly have that one coming that was the only last possible of the only claim that was left in that they had represented in every you know had been represented that was the only claim left but again just given the benefit of the down if you use that fortress dismissal judge that would have been able left their motion no notice of appeal was fall within thirty days final actual of judgment comes down from the fortress dismissal which again at the latest would have been when the time fine for taking an appeal or following a motion for extending the appeal you know what a do think in the representation was we didn't just kind of big around the think was the language that my colleague said i mean this is this clearly was this kind of a hail mary this was this was a ok there's a party out here and we forgot they were out there and we and i think they admit that in the breeze i think the fact that that represent those representations were constantly made to the district court in their own followings and in the judge's rulings it's clear that that claim had been dismissed dismiss file i think that's putting the cart before the horse because that the threshold issue is was the appeal timely that's what was just discussed if we believe obviously that it was not timely and if it's not timely and the only issue before this court is the rule sixty issue of the roll sixty issue is the the district court denied the appellant's motion for reconsideration under rule sixty the opponents spent one change in their brief on this issue just one page and there is no case law cited there is no discussion of the factors of rule sixty of why of what even the the standard of review would be well the standard of review for review of a rule sixty denial is abuse of discretion there is nothing in the opponent's argument about judge hicks abusing his discretion in denying the rule sixty motion there is no indication that the judge's ruling was an reasonable and there is also again no discussion of the specific factors rule sixty is not like rule fifty nine fifty nine dollars allows a more thorough reconsideration rule sixty is limited to ministerial clerical errors in the judgment itself and it sets out those issues clerical errors fraud vice in names all the different issues for why the court can go back up to a year after the judgement and amend that judgement none of those factors are present here if the opponents argument is to bleat to be believed then there is no finality of judgement ever for any any ruling for up to a year after that ruling is issued that is essentially what they're arguing is a rewriting of rule sixty in order to do a catch oh and try to try to come back after the fact to make arguments motions to dismiss and essentially made the argument that dr d's failed to argue immunity in his st motion to dismiss and there are therefore somehow waived that or cannot come back in filing new twelve b six motion  that's not correct st of all it's factually incorrect in addition to being legally correct the reason why i say it's factually incorrect and dr d's is st motion to dismiss there is a separate subsection it's a roman numeral two i sufficient differences between them that i'm not going to have to look at them the same and therefore denied it without prejudice deny the st motion to dismiss on immunity without prejudice and sensually inviting us to come he came back and filed the rd motion to dismiss and that was granted and the reason why the court granted it was based on immunity now there are three relevant statutes here two of which provide absolute immunity but one that does allegations in the plaintiff's complaint that dr d's knowingly testified falsely instead what it says is that the plaintiffs allege the doctor does reports have an accurac in anywhere in plaintiff's complaint and judge hicks was correct the court can hang its hat on any of the three immunity statutes all apply and all provide immunity for exactly this reason is a public policy reason no dentist in his the no dentist would step forward to voluntarily appear before a board hearing if it's offering those opinions concerning a number of patient the time for final judgment when is the final judgement and also assuming that can't marcello i'm assuming i guess it would be the february nd ruling by the court that will conclude the arguments for