in plaintiff's quincey both bio sciences complaint and amended complaint they brought reference to an allegation of starting point two which is following before judgment being stolen so mr dewey the thing is it's a default judgment yes ma'am when there's a default judgment the plaintiff no longer bears any burden of proving the facts that would underlie that judgment if you will to use an old fashioned terminology the cause of action merges into the judgment and the only thing that's left to determine are the damages so had you answered and gone to trial on these points i think these all would have been issues that you would want to the judgement so whether it was stolen will let you know all those things but i want to go to liability yes it does here and i do have knowledge that as we as i said before it is facts are brought forth during the damages here and in this case the damages hearing facts we have no knowledge of these stolen goods now whereas we are looking at why is that relevant to the damage you need the thing we have to assume that it's for this litigation these books were stolen and so there's a proof about damages one could imagine you know measures of damages how much do you sell do you do profits to do last visit you know there are all kinds of things that come up in damages  it's not that it's assuming they're stolen what is the loss on the part of the company that is the victim of that  and you know you're not you're kind of in a strange position because you seem to be arguing that you have a right to sell stolen goods which is a somewhat unusual position to me but i don't see how this hour the district  as well as how this court can assume stolen when plaintiffs themselves admitted they have no knowledge or concerns a finding of fact that merged into the default judgment however that the fact you're trying to you didn't move to reopen the default guess your look however we are looking at the issue came up a factual determination was made based on the inquiry by the district court as to how do they support stolen but the point is if it's a default judgment it's  grooved however we are looking at treble damages it doesn't matter that's a different issue that goes to what's the measure of damages how many units are we talking about what was the price you know what sales were lost and what are sounds like to me you're o gas came out a factual inquiry those are facts that you're trying to bring forward well the district court allows pre hearing discovery with respect to damages or to prove a hearing wednesday submit evidence of damages to the tune of about four hundred and eighty thousand dollars yes your if your so is so there how about what you faxed me but i think we can ignore the other fact as well plaintiff also brought up the issue of treble damages so you're saying what you're telling me is that we can look at the factual inquiry for these damages but we can look at the inquiry for trouble damages and i don't think that's what it's saying either so by opening up the floor for treble damages yes they open the door the fact came into the case whereby they admitted kate we have no evidence there's nothing here so you're telling me that at this point we need to acknowledge the factual determination by them that they have no evidence and the order which was stolen products so on one hand you're saying my client should have known about stolen products when defended already plaintive already and it really has me now i'm saying your client conceded all of the elements of the claim had opportunity and you argued the damages should be limited to thirty thousand dollars as was your right the district court winds up deciding the damages except basically the quincy numbers the four hundred and eighty seven thousand some numbers and then adds the injunction once we have a little bit of back and forth about the form of the injunction so that's where we are you could be here arguing you know the damages were closer to thirty thousand but for some reason you're not doing that well you're out and are close with this my tribe was very bothered by the allegation of being stolen merchandise and i do understand we are under the cancer complaint defended then you know we can get i have when i close with that as well  ok draw some reference to it however it's that i don't see how we can cut off when asked talking about one aspect of damages and not considering the other aspect of damages the other aspect of damages those may trouble damages they were discuss factual inquiry was made not by defendant but by the district court and the district court made so if it wasn't pertinent to the district court why would they make that increase how do you support stolen merchandise so you're asking us to ignore something that's clearly on its record one face which is not just that there was a lack of evidence we're not talking about a lack of evidence we're talking about admission that there is no evidence we have no knowledge appeal or when we we move to modify and we say to court you know we thought that the injunctive of section was already granted but we need to have we'd like to have this in the order and they don't show up they don't respond they don't turn up at the markings on bottles that would indicate source that are dead we believe the evidence which show weren't there but hidden are if id and security tags which would show these things come from wholesalers these came from retail stores and then we  do e mails we don't know what what warehouses they've gone to if they had to comply with discovery we might have been able to match some of those up with the ones that we knew but we just never got to that stage and now they turn around and say these are turned a blind eye at least to what they pay to the stuff that they identified eighty percent we don't know they didn't know that we got discovery from amazon according to granted rd party discovery and it showed that they were selling far more product whatever we didn't make the defense that they didn't make was actually and it's a little convoluted but looks like what they said was we've taken your product and we've rebranded it under some other label that would be reversed falling off that would  operator manager of the company to appear and they did that so we think that there was there is definitely no basis to say that family business are you actually challenging any part of this injunction yes the stolen merchandise in which is why we're here they say with it but you're not challenging what we're challenging the language sheriff there was an injunction that said and we won't when you have an idea of who my client is the family business they run they run the language that's included in this injunction is quite insulting to them it alludes that they are guilty of some sort of criminal matter if the price which they were docked infringement well trademark infringement i would necessarily quality criminal enterprise for example if you go to marshall's if you go to coles t j maxx these are some of the largest retailers out there today you have to wonder where do they get their hundreds and hundreds of products  know the product wasn't selling well it wasn't moving wow it would bright at a discount and they would sell it perfectly legal perfectly legal trademark infringement i don't think so but we're not challenging that what we are challenging is the inference that they were part of a criminal