court and clean up the mess so why let me just let me stop and ask a question or two they filed a document at the court of appeal which is not a surprise that you know i don't want to be flip that happens a lot when a bankruptcy gets filed because there can be someone certainty both at the court of appeal and sometimes among the parties on how you think there shouldn't of been any but there can't be so they file a document that says well there's a bankruptcy and at the time the posture was i believe it were theoretically although they weren't the originator of the lawsuit they were they were the proponent in the sense that they had a judgment against you correct that's correct and i need now you may think that that they shouldn't over it's you know not a judgment or so they could profit that doesn't change the fact they were still the party who would i mean the fact that they were doing a right that nd isn't my question my question is the posture is they were seeking something from you correct with their judgment being that's what i mean they issued an order to show cause which under your analysis wouldn't have been void because you're saying nothing with day and they said we're going to do this unless you do something i understand your point but if we have to here we have to clashing systems we have a court of appeal that is told you we want you to do something and we were and you're saying well no the debtor typical doesn't have to do it typically the creditor has to do it under my fieri and i'm trying to figure out how you would have us resolve this because we certainly can't say to the court of appeal your instruction is meritless your instruction is without wanted the problem was solved i'm just trying to figure out if this is always a problem press when we had state federal we know we understand supremacy clause when to stand but i don't think even the principles of comedy that we have the right to say to the court of appeal that they can't you know that they can't stay their own case and they can't set because the standards by which they would lift that appeal so that that kind of you know get what do we do with that don't think i think that's the wrong ver because i think it's a respected issue for the day you know there's a couple of competing things here you know we're all in agreement that this doesn't violate but not massive by any means the scale of it your honor should you say win it or file his bankruptcy titian on may th that case was briefed it was set for oral argument in june of two thousand and nineteen and when the city received notice the city did what all creditors are supposed to do it went oh there's potentially a case in which i will be taking action against property of the estate because on the appeal i'm going to attempt to vindicate the just hold off for a while right there was a suggestion at the back that the court of appeal should hold off for a moment rather than just say your honour's we're giving notice it's your honour's give notice and by the way we need to stop this because if you don't stop this there's a chance that i will be in violation of the automatic stay well did it is is mr stewart correct that your suggestion was you need to stop it for five years this suggestion was and it was drafted by you know in bankruptcy counsel is said and says it's  be stayed pending resolution from the bankruptcy proceedings now when i assume that to me what i interpret that to mean is until the bankruptcy court provides some clarification and that's exactly what the relief the court of appeals granted ok which was to say i'm going to issue an order to show cause mr stewart tell me why it shouldn't be stayed and we can proceed or not proceed and the bankruptcy court made very clear who the burd appeals orders very clear there is further order directing appellant mr stewart that are to advise this court no later than june th the status of the bankruptcy proceeding well and mr stewart's point is that's at least in his mind against bankruptcy policy if not appeals he didn't do that in fact your honor what he did do is through counsel provided the notice of bankruptcy proceedings further about this until approximately september after mr stewart violence bankruptcy attorney my office received an e mail saying you were violation of the automatic stay that doesn't make much sense to me runners but in any let's just pump the brakes let's just slow down so that we don't accidently violate the state because that's what predators are supposed to do and as the bankruptcy court found that is sound public policy you do not want to desensitize creditors from hitting the brakes on litigation where affirmative relief has been awarded against the doctor you want caution and you want them to proceed with caution so because this court is in the business of making law it would just be creditors over a barrel and put them in an impossible l your position would be i take it that there's all the difference in the world between telling the court of appeal there is a bankruptcy there is an automatic stay we should not proceed until the scope of that stay is determined then we all know that one more point if i may your honors and i'm certainly happy to answer any more questions but one additional point the city is permitted by all accounts public a small group of the city's permitted to protect its own interest in to ensure its own interests are protected and gave initiated by the debtor the debtor does not have free rein to litigate and can simultaneously tie the hands of creditors in that litigation the city certainly has an interest rate sound and vested interest in not violating the automatic stay position i absolutely understand your honour's difficulty wrestling with that because the cognitive dissonance necessary to grapple with it is almost indescribable there would be for instance i think circumstances where it would be inappropriate for me to file things in a touch on that briefly if i may or others the better seems to move back and forth as to whether or not the city reportedly i believe the only basis he cited a rate so if a property of the state is the case the court missed what we call the state court appeal the city didn't take control of that case if anybody did the court appeals to it because the court of appeals of course has jurisdiction and the province to govern its own docket you know it's the sort of abstract property be a state associated with seeking the fresh start granted by the coach and the debtor spending that money is perhaps unfortunate but is a reality of seeking the press start initiate it in some your honour's and i again i'm happy to answer any more questions that you the panel of the two of you may have is this court has made clear over and over again the automatic state is a shield her be honest unfortunate debtor not a sword for the litigious to seek damages if you have no further questions from your honour's i believe i've concluded i've got one there may be a little off the wall but i was little bit curious not that i can figure out why you would have done that but let's just say for fun you had gone to the bankruptcy court and said we're not sure this is affected by this stay or not but it should be for the following five reasons please don't please prohibit this appeal from going forward would that have been a violation of the sec under the debtors please tell me that i shouldn't let it get this case because it would be subject to the automatic out of order there are five good reasons why it shouldn't be litigated now precisely and or not but the debtors are going to have a lot of weight on that argument because they are you know the debtor is going to be you're you don't want to deal with reality what if a lot i think i'm perfectly capable of dealing with the reality i don't think that's what this is a battle i think i'm asking you could to to differentiate between what seems to be a very fine why isn't this just participation in the appeal i assume that they didn't ask for it based on the status of it was an injunction assume it's an unstable of a geisha and can they do whatever they want as long as they're not seeking under was it's in a three issue then they had every reason to seek to seek to to give the notice and say don't make a finally take three it seems to me you're trying to have your cake and eat it too i'm trying to give you a chance thank you very much for your time and thank you to those in pasadena who have made this possible thank you very much