missouri timothy stockton versus eagle evidence more probably true the not true that the party signal being has standing to bring the claim in this case that based on the preponderance of the evidence standard based on the entire record before the district court  he for collections has the right to intervene has standing to bring a claim the fact the predicate for standing by mr stockton as is and a stock purchase agreement that he entered into with the sale of this company interrupt you on your adjective you said unequivocal or some such word i heard you say you know and when i look at this i was candidly surprised when i got the three or four pages here that are in the record  you know all this blacked out stuff all around it and especially where the next page says conditions the obligations conditions and all this stuff and and this bare bones i just think that probably the district court thought that you had about a gun to get enough to even tell was going on here and you're hiding not just the balls but the whole game no your honor there was no intent before the district  question which is the next page says conditions it's all balled up how do we know that one of those doesn't say you can't do it based on the plain language to section six point one six and with respect to the  record before the district court there is the declaration your honor of can sigman which is at page one you queen of the appendix and mr sigman in it and there's a larger portion of the stock purchase agreement that attach to purchased certain software science in all i start in software as a cut received while for equal picture technologies and determine that it did not want to pursue recovering this post acquisition rather silent and start a negotiated that is part of the compensation sigman who is the associate vice president of sighing and who is the purchaser of certain he's standing under oath that is part of the stock purchase agreement was understood and agreed that mr stockton as part of the compensation for the  the let me let me finish because why isn't it a reasonable argument that it was not in effect because by suing in the name of sight and he was using it commercially also a violation of the so what what's wrong with that argument to say that at the time he tried to intervene the assignment was no longer a fact you're going to respond that the question that was  merits of his right to recover but it does not defeat the very narrow question of whether or not he has an assignment he has an assignment to bring the claim if there are defenses ultimately to the merits of his claim that would go to whether or not he preached the stock purchase agreement or there were defenses that are available under the agreement but the very narrow question of standing did he have standing to bring the claim it's claimed it's clear under section six dollars that he didn't have standing to bring the claim and it still does at the very fact that the original action was not brought in his name and mr stock notwithstanding the fact that that this assignment lying which had already been agreed upon and execute it does at the very fact that it was not brought in his name doesn't that indicate that there is some problem there some issue for some reason the assignment does that it was not as effective no you're not as exaggerate the assignment says the late show automatically without any further action by the company aside to sell or upon closing so if that took place at the fact that the lawsuit originally was brought certain software but the but that conduct itself is without prejudice to the actual terms of the stock purchase agreement which does the sign the rights to mr stockton on  without further action of the company that he has the right to pursue the the accounts receivable based on the date on when you can picture that there are and what has happened here is that eagle picture who is a stranger to the stock purchase agreement is trying to use terms of the stock purchase agreement to defeat the assignment the right under assignment that mr stockton has no i would admit in hindsight i wish that the entire agreement was before the court again i believe another mistake was made in how this case was handled and that the entire agreement was not before the court i have to be perfectly frank to the court that i wished personally that the entire  confidentiality provision in the agreement that's part of the record and in terms of that the narrowest narrows aspect of the agreement was produced in and used in support of the assignment further at the time district court ruled pitcher called the objection there was a conference with the court where it was argued the merits of the objection or not but the district court rather than addressing the merits of the discovery dispute which would have disclosed to the issue of whether or not the entire agreement should have been produced or not the court ruled on the stand in question lessens the court put the cart before the horse that what has happened here is really bite why  stockton's standing in so the court without addressing the discovery question whether or not the entire prima should have been produced whether or not the objection was proper dismissed the case for want of standing  declaration and mr stockton's declaration that there is no question that that there was that assignment in that the assignment is what give standing now if there is no defense to to mr stockton's claim based on a breach of the agreement or so forth court may consider the facts that are apparent from the pleadings which include a reference of section point sixty six dollars team and then the record including the declarations that show there was an assignment confirm that the contract terms mr stockton had standing to intervene that's not correct interventionist governed by rules one for the issue before the court is whether or not mr stockton satisfy is evidence burden to prove possibly should've ascertained or determine stopped and standing with a greater than we need to intervene however i do think the standards are different so the standard for rule twenty four motion is that somebody who claims an interest relating to  transaction may intervene that disposing of the action may as a practical matter impair his or her interests and there are a couple of warm cabinets one is that the rules construed literally and all d doubts are resolved in favor of the proposed therefore the district court's order judgment should be over as yours or where the only evidence in the record and i use that term loosely is the four page heavily redacted excerpted copy arse we don't have an affidavit we don't have deposition transcript testimony we certainly don't have a wide testimony the stock purchase agreement that is an issue was attached to mr stockton than it would have been on a motion for summary judgment because this case was a separate trial and i think one way you could think about this appeal is just pretended that this this appeals one promotion that granted  four page that serve the document not its actually anything without any foundational testimony i don't think this court would have any problem in that context affirming a grant of summary judgment and saying that mr stockton stockton's briefs it does not appear in his opposition to the motion for the district court so i think it's a little bit late for mr stockton to argue for the st time during argument on the appeal that he could somehow rely upon m record exception of hearsay rule he doesn't talk about science business practices what their record even practices are he doesn't say that this document was regularly made or maintained in the course of science business or any of the other mr stockton's motions intervening is that mr stopped and i awaited the terms of the assignment he says that mr stockton and miss this case without permission not in his own name your arse again your only record the only evidence before the court on this issue is that stockton violated those conditions if you look at page forty four of the record that is search on scryer council's motion to withdraw employment and there after the st positions and then again you have the insignia decoration which says that i proceed in the way that he did stop and did exactly what he promised not to do because itimate opposition to you evil vicious person to dismiss even the stock never mention that of the district or the only evidence in the record is that mr stockton violated the terms of the site and in response there is nothing by mr stop it again these are all arguments that eagle picture made its original moving papers in support of its motion to dismiss mr stockton at every opportunity to submit an affidavit he could have submitted the entire stock purchase agreement and i frankly don't have very much sympathy for mr stockton or mr ward's power that you were rex the entire agreement is not a record because  entire green it and mr stockton refused to provide it so again i don't have much sympathy for mr stockton that the entire group does not record you're absolutely correct judged and that there are many many provisions of the room and that closing date the closing date is a defined term in the stock purchase agreement but we don't have it we don't know what it is and so you have to question if mr stockton believe that this inferences that he's not in response to stand but nd of all the district or deny his motion to substitute itself this claim to pursue to a federal civil procedure twenty five dollars because the court could not determine the validity or scope of the assignment if your honour's mr stockton was aware of this we pointed this out in our movement papers but rather than come forward with additional evidence mr stopped and made the decision to rest and rely upon what he had already submitted and what the court here already determined was insufficient to establish his reticence to themselves right now as to federal civil procedure twenty four dollars intervention this is what the district prove is standing by for pirates of the evidence he didn't do that you're right back up on the same four page excerpt redacted stock purchase agreement that the district court had already found inconclusive in the absence of