pastel dismissed under twelve b i just want to focus on two issues that is the broader issue of whether the court should recognize that every fraud is perpetrated on the state court and the circumstances of iraq are feltman argument whether that fraud should be some type of a fraud exception to the rocker feldman doctrine fraud was presented to the new york state courts here i mean that's right i understand from the record is that it was raised a number of times times with the new york state courts that look this was a florida bar proceeding it wasn't a florida court proceeding it wasn't fairly litigated down there how can you rely on this but since that was presented to the new york state courts and that's the claim of fraud that you have how are we not bound new york city courts well resolution of that i'm sorry judge the the fraud itself is not that the  florida bar hadn't rendered an opinion as to the binding effect of the alleged settlement ok the fraud alleged was the fraud that was alleged was the mischaracterization by c g m i's attorneys in front of judge numerous arguments that were raised as far as whether in fact that argument was fully argued and that issue was fully let me get it in front of judge ramos if you look at the december two thousand and thirteen  transcript which is in the record i think it's a one hundred and eighty four i mean judge ramos is pretty pretty direct i mean he says the petition is granted in all respects thank you very much the decision is on the record take your appeal he had really no interest in going and it was and it was presented to the new york story towards this nature of the fraud which was the misrepresentation of what happened in florida and he made a finding that that in fact that the side that decision and of the florida bar and bar was a valid adjudication which went to the merits of whether the settlement was valid or not i mean i think that this kind of leads to the nd issue which i don't think you can really divorce the two them and that the complaint that was filed with the judge was in front of judge pastel raise a number of different causes of action and one of those cause of action was seeking dammit it is based upon the decision of the  fact that mr fear rel and as also as trustee has suffered damage as a result of the actions of c g i my there was never a request there was never an action in front of judge ramos and state supreme them that judge ramos had reached the wrong conclusion by disregarding what had happened during the wait be finra hearing what that complaint a rd cause of action said wait a nd we suffered financial damages where the plaintiff here where the movement here where seeking are some damages and there was never any ruling on whether fear real had actually suffered any damages i understand judge throw me that separating these two out is incredibly difficult and it's very very difficult under the circumstances but i think that here judge the counsel for who drafted the complaint and private complained front of judge pastel try to separate and argue that there were actual damages to the party to mr freeh around the trustee which were never litigated in front of judge ramos in fact judge pastel and his decision he says when he's discussing rocker injuries caused by state court judgement there was never a complaint by fear realized that he suffered injuries and financial nature he was always in front of judge ramos was all on the bench but always in front of the judge ramos for the purpose of trying to convince the commercial part judge that wait a nd there was a valid arbitration here citi group participated fully they presented witnesses they maybe even motions as a quote that unfortunately i never heard it but it's always ascribed to just chief justice warren and an arguments he would hit when he was hearing or agreements or the last arguments he would present to a lot of government lawyers would be well at the end of the day is it fair because fairness is an essential element of this and the southern railway case which i cited in the in my brief which is earnest well yeah it does seem a little odd that there are all relying on new york our grievance proceeding for resolving this issue well as a florida bar decision and i agree with judge ronnie that actually i don't believe and i think i would discuss that in my brief that a decision of the florida bar and i've read decisions of the new york bar and other state bars when there's been a complaint and this is a complaint about fees this was to complain that they were engaged in malpractise or the lawyer let me finish my  arbitration proceedings indicating why that at all did not honor the settlement agreement why they proceeded with the hearing there's nothing i could find about that which was which is odd to well what they were motions made by c is counsel and they the finra panel twice i believe inside in the brief i don't remember the pages of the record i could provide that later if you like just basically said that they'd know why those motions i didn't render any opinion whatsoever so we really don't know what they are reasoning was but at the end of the day and i agree with you one hundred percent that i would be shocked and i would be loath to appear in front of a judicial panel arguing that the merits of additional been fully adjudicated by a decision a letter decision of a of a bar review committee or a grievance committee whether it's in new york or florida or anywhere else that adjudicates that is  of an issue and the key issue here i mean it's not like this is us minor issue that the florida bar dealt with this went to the root of whether mr fear l a was going to end up being whole or at least be made partially arguments raised at least allowing my client the opportunity to present at least going through discovery as you said earlier is one of the that's going to slide as one of the judges said earlier i think it was a reference to well one of the other cases today well don't you think maybe this is something that maybe should be you waiting through discovery maybe on a rule fifty six motion you can deceive you can decide this or maybe that's the appropriate place for this be decided after least there is some discovery and a decision whether in fact that settlements blow it up it happens all the time and practice if you have any other questions but i appreciate the time refused to accept since two thousand and fourteen that the state court vacated an arbitration judgement in his favor he filed this federal court action only after taking multiple appeals in the new york state courts the s successfully to take the vacated arbitration judgment to the courts of france and seek to seize city's assets abroad in satisfaction of the vacated judgment in the district court correctly held that each of mr fearless claims are foreclosed by the worker feldman doctrine for the most part and i'll come back to the one exception mr farrell it does not dispute that the four elements of the worker feldman doctrine  satisfied here that he lost in state court that he complains of injuries caused by the state court judgment that he invites review and rejection of the state court judgement in federal court and that the state park judgment was rendered before he filed his federal court action and with one exception which i'll come back to all of these elements mr freear really concedes have been satisfied here so what he is asking this court to do is to create a new exception one that has never been recognized by this court for what he is calling a fraud there are several problems with this one there was absolutely no fraud full stop nd this court has never recognized a fraud exception and in the handful of courts that have a recognized f exception it would not apply to these facts where mr fear ella had a full and fair opportunity to raise the purported fraud in the state court and thus was not in any way deprived of due process and there were no procedural impairment or that is the crux oceanographer what's your view on the let me let me place what happened it just into the timeline a little bit your honor the the st hearing that was held in front of justice ramos the issue that was being addressed was was there in fact a settlement between mr figure and city before the finra hearing commenced and while engaging with that topic the city's counsel was presenting the evidence some of which had become uncovered during this disciplinary proceeding in florida and the evidence that we were focused on your honor st was the fact that both sides had presented to finra in writing the fact that a settlement had occurred that was the primary evidence of a settlement that both sides in writing manifested that a settlement had occurred my colleague from paul ways who was at oral argument presenting then said and your honor to add to that there was this disciplinary action in the florida bar and by the way it was not about fees it was because mr farrell accused his lawyer of settling without his permission and in defending himself his lawyer said i did have your permission and he put in the evidence showing that mr farrell had in fact consented to the settlement and the florida bar a the tribe you know that's being referenced in the papers in this disciplinary proceeding concluded that in fact mr fearless counsel had had his permission to settle and did in fact go and settle that case so we were not arguing your honor that this was race judicata we were not arguing that the court couldn't the new the court couldn't consider this issue because a florida tribunals had already decided that we were merely presenting to the judge the evidence that there had been further proceedings and evidence had come out as part of this disciplinary proceeding and when justice ramos said and what did the disciplinary proceeding hold we answered the question and the purported fraud here is that when the judge said one of the florida courts say instead of saying you honor it was a tribunals or it was a disciplinary proceeding we answered the question and said that they found that that there had in fact been a settlement now there is no question justice ramos was not misled in any way by that colloquy on the record and we know that for several reasons one is there was a motion for reconsideration filed and justice ramos himself said this is frivolous and if you think that if justice ramos had been misled he would have known that but we also know it because the briefs that were presented by city in that matter correctly described this as a disciplinary proceeding we did not argue that there was some race judicata impact of the disciplinary proceeding we simply laid out the facts and when justice ramos rendered his written decision on the after that oral argument and by the way it was weeks if not several months afterwards justice ramos in his order said in light of the fact that this matter was in fact settled and that all parties so advised the panel and finra in writing and then he only says an apparent thetic role which a florida tribe you know has found as fact in a proceeding that these respondents comments it's apparent that a call he clearly is relying on the written evidence presented by both sides to the floor to finda that there had been a settlement he is not he is there is no question he does not think he is bound by a florida court having actually issued a ruling and him having any race to dakota impact on his proceedings so your honor i would i would respectfully submit that the only reason the disciplinary action as raised was because additional evidence had come out through it it did not mislead the state court putting that aside this issue this very issue was raised in the very st appeal in the very st appeal in the appellate division this argument was made that that city's counsel had misled justice ramos during the oral argument and it was rejected by the appellate division and it has been rejected repeatedly since then so not only have they had multiple bites of the apple in state court but they do not get another bite at the apple now if your honor in federal court if there was no fraud and and they certainly don't get to argue here that there is some fraud exception that this court has never recognized that should be created for the purpose of this case i want to address the sort of secondary argument which relates as i understand it only to the rd cause of action which is the fraud claim is arguing that there are somehow or some sort of separate damages that are recoverable through the federal court action and therefore would not be foreclosed by the worker feldman doctrine and while he was  arguing mr kleiman i think made a very important concession that demonstrate that that's not true and what he said is that it was only before justice ramos to determine that the arbitration judgment was valid and i think that says it all there were no separate damages pleaded in the front claim in this case the only damage that allegedly that mr that mr farrell is pursuing in the state court case is that he wants his arbitration award back he wants his arbitration a and the thing that is preventing him from having his arbitration award back whether to whether to assert it here in the united states or to take it a broad and try to assert it there is the state court judgment and that is how we know that every injury that mr has stems directly from the state court judgment that is what he is here complaining about and what this court previously has said in the the holbrooke decision or the whole block decision excuse me is that you cannot vade the ricker feldman doctrine by calling your claim something else he can't call it a fraud claim and say it has separate damages and thereby of a the record feldman doctrine he has to identify what the separate damages are and here he has not done so there is no separate claim in my remaining minute i just want to make one additional point which is that even if all of mr fearless claims were not foreclosed by the worker feldman doctrine they certainly would be foreclosed by judicata the new york courts as as i have mentioned earlier have addressed over and over again these claims there have been multiple appeals taken of every theory that has been asserted in these papers in fact everyone has been asserted and raised with the with the new york courts and reste you to cut a law doesn't even require that all it requires is that mr fierro had the opportunity to raise these claims but he has in fact raised them all and they have been rejected both by justice ramos by the appellate division on several occasions and the court of appeals has twice tonight leave to appeal further in this case and just in terms of where these these issues are in the record  contests that he has raised these issues however if you look at eight to eight the question presented in his state court appeal this is st the court appeal you'll see that the fraud claim is squarely presented it's addressed as well in other places in his brief including there is absolutely no connection whatsoever between france and this dispute so it's not because of some connection to france my theory is that mr farrell a figured out that the french courts unlike most other courts in the world will not consider as a totally dispositive matter the fact that the home court has vacated the arbitration judgment and so he thinks it's the best forum for him to go into and get another bite at the apple because he's going to argue that under french law and we're go disagree but he's going to argue that under french law the french quite don't care what the home court did in vacating the judgment and he gets to start totally from scratch in france that is his argument or in mari shoes i did see some parallels there your honor yes it's a crime you know it was a really time but if i can just plead that's the issue in france the issue in france was based upon the fact that under french civil law if there is a decision by an arbitration paris this kid case should beast this pay should be stopped because we have a valid court order the answer is no french counsel has done nothing whatsoever you know so as far as everything that's going on in france and nothing went through every meeting they have not made no appearance they sent some correspondence to french to mr fearless french counsel saying you know you can't do this and so forth but there if i wanted to stop the fan of have a valid basis for having a stopping need to go in front of the french judge which at least as of yesterday i was told by french counsel they have not done anything like that all right thank you reserve this if you want to quickly answer your honor i just to be very clear the original french proceedings that were filed that are the topic of this motion were in fact dismissed by mr fear alone when the anti suit injunction was entered then in december of two thousand and eighteen he started new french proceedings that's what he's talking about he in contempt of the state court and they sued injunction and we have contempt proceedings pending right now in the new york state court because he is acting in violation of its injunction and we by the way have not been doing nothing in france we have filed the necessary currently pending in the new york state supreme court your honor that's right reserved thank you your hon