whole bunch of issues that had been decided by the district court and so it's really the motion for reconsideration where the court said i can tell that what was decided here was substantive and now why should think not consider when the enters an order and writes an opinion granting sanctions based upon your having filed a motion to a man and talking about that motion and saying there is no basis in law for this why should we not then agree with the district court that clearly a motion to amend was viewed by the district court as baseless and therefore a determination on the matter i might take it up but i'm not going to then he says but you're talking about a whole separate cause of action and you have to do it you have to do but no that's part and parcel of as of this case and the way  once once judge interest and said i'm not going to allow you to amend this because the rico couple is gone it was gone it was no longer before the court and rex can never had an ability to address the merits of its but it's part and parcel of an abuse of the of the living gate of process here you file a motion to remand you for motions for sanctions i don't want to hear it and it was only at that point after the rico case was gone it had been out of court for eighteen months at that point did it come back and say by the way that motion to him and i don't know we're crazy about that either it was it was a it was a it it was something that he said again in the nature of  do disagree what if we say you know he really was saying go to federal court not here it wasn't really caught and you're you're home free well i think counts one two and three go back to the district court  that you have alleged sure that you pursued on appeal is capacity the parts you haven't really appealed on the basis that are really different issues before the courts that's correct drawn that are going to appeal based upon different parties well we've on the basis of the capacity to pass this and not the fact that there are different stories now and again this is one of those areas where i took a look at all the issues there we definitely had more issues than this with with judge bell since decisions on the supreme court said there was look a corporation can only act through its officers and if we were going to immunize individuals only because they were they were in a high position within a corporation they were using that corporation to francis and other action you against individuals who act as the corporation and say that in those actions they did certain things which constitute we could predicates seems like the same struggle because the corporation cannot my name is jason gosling and i represent citation publishing in the individual defendants in this matter i'm going to try to be brief this morning i think the issues here pretty narrow and i think they're also pretty clear cut that need it seems that the crux of honor i think that that if you look at that transcript in context and i know you have the i think they're taking that statement out of context it's sort of like what if you'll forgive me my pre teen tell me she's going to move out and i tell her you can do whatever you want to move or ever you want you still have to take your head off at the dinner table and that's that was the context of the what the what the judge said in state court case i cited some of the statements of the trial court in my brief going back over the weekend looking at the record there are some other statements that make it very clear that the judge actually i think in one sentence here was correct it was there was a procedural quality to the ruling but  quality are not necessarily mutually exclusive i think the judge was deciding both procedurally and substantively the court said and he's talking to mr earle been trying to read a scan of the time you can't do this you can't do this mr you can't take a case like this that has really its foundation is contract and now we get with this kind of thing with legal charges and that kind of thing just because of the fact you don't like the way they've handled the case it's war it's just plain wrong that was the trial court and i submit that that was not simply a ruling on procedure in that case so you're saying we could find this procedure and substantive but as long as we find it substantive then they're out of correct correct i think and i think in  know the judge did not want to dramatically open up the case particularly for one that was legally married my step of the court found it was both but it was certainly subsequent and i think that you can credit mr transparent argument that it's also procedural without finding that that that decision was as not based on the merits of the trial court i also want to point out one other thing which we spent a lot of time talking about the motion to amend the complaint to add rico claims but the in the appeal and they did do racial categories to claims they could have been brought as well as the ones that were actually brought so you're saying even if we have procedural substantive it's not going to matter because if it goes back there's going to be nothing there based on other things district court get it really wrong in terms of the capacity issue judge garzon didn't mention cedric and doesn't secret specifically say that the distinction between employees acting within the scope of corporate authority and those acting outside of the authority is inconsistent with the basis statutory purpose of rico i don't think the judge got it wrong the if the if you look at what the alleged conduct was in both cases that's where you can see that to the corps citation did all the things that were done wrong according to race again were done by citation in the state court case and citation could only add to its employees when those claims are dismissed greyscale cannot now bring the very same case against the individuals who are the actors and say well and now bringing these claims against these individuals in their individual capacity those individuals do whatever they did they did in their capacity as employees of citation procedurally defective because in india ted the real claimed there was no separateness between the alleged enterprise and the alleged defendant with there they're saying citation was the after the enterprise and it was also the defendant  various software programs and used to compete unfairly with race again though whether you were you able those tortious interference or something else those claims are what are barred now in the federal case and just because he didn't call them rico when he originally drafted his complaint doesn't mean that he can now bring those very same claims in federal court well you know what you're saying is recall is not a different crime or different cause of action from the real complaint in federal court that's what happened here so you have the crux of the case and a really big part of this is this business about not paying citation not paying their employees on time losing a payroll here and there i submit that isn't the crux of what the allow you to amend to bring the but the idea that that is risk judicata seems wrong somehow and yet t t we we decided that for purposes of work or feldman but assess and what the court said is if you have a one line order so you can't tell just by looking at the order whether it was procedural or substantive you then go to work on what took place on ruling on the motion and that's how you can determine whether it was procedural or subs issue on a motion to amend this bill i permit you to amend this and that's the that's the determination that the court has to make and the court decided no i will not allow you to amend it isn't that the essence of the ruling such that the reasoning behind it isn't all that relevant well one of the one of the arguments that was raised in opposing that motion to amend is that essentially it would be futile because it was a baseless claim and that amend right crowd you absolutely know it so well you know we're going to start the case for instance you could say well we're trying to call tomorrow for an electorate man today it could be that clear could be you know further away from that clarity and still could be a matter of discretion and because we had a situation where it was the eve of trial and they brought up an attempt at a legal claim and the court said look we're about to start trial we're not going to let you do that i think then it might actually have a argument here that it was not substantive we have we don't have that situation we have something where discovery was it was ongoing it wasn't that was it was you know a couple years later that the case was ultimately dismissed and well i think in fairness there was some of that sentiment in the judge's mind when he when he rejected the motion to amend there was also the sentiment that this is a merit of this question and to get back to judgment you know your your argument before the reason i bring that up that the main case that was mitigated is because if you were to find that  was perceived and i don't think you should it wouldn't matter anyway because the the meat of the state case was this alleged theft of software and data that is also the meat of the federal rico case and that has already the second circuit in the second circuit he could automatically say that a complex causation issue was a reason to get rid of it and i don't think put the supreme court said any of that was anything different i don't think the supreme court needs a broken new big government has a different person doing so it doesn't raise the ends of causation issues and i think that's how we get around it and the other issue is the issue was raised with judge wilson on the motion for  said i looked into it and i don't think it prevents the rico claim from going forward period so i am not quite sure that the end is actually in front of the court at this point but i do think it's distinguishable because of the allegations that were made  against the individual defendants there were a couple things i did want to address them but from mr goss one race to the first one was the crux of the case because he keeps saying that of the defendants keep saying that the crux of the case is and just going back to some of the language that mr goss onesided from the transcript judge anderson said you can't do chris case well ok can't new get that means to me i can't add an additional cause of action has nothing to do with the substance of the rico case he repeatedly says in oral argument i don't want to expand this case and that was supported by the fact that when he denied the motion to amend when judge i'm sorry when judge under some denied the motion to amend he didn't win one more motion to demand  on the motion to amend i'm not asking the court to reconsider judge anderson's rule ten twenty three motion that was appealed to the pennsylvania superior court and screws miss proof in favor of the individual defendants admit that and now it's on appeal to the pennsylvania supreme court i'm not asking the court to review that all i'm saying is when you're looking at the issue of race judicata you have to look at what judge anderson did when he denied the motion to amend and he denied it because he didn't want to expand the scope of the existing case before him and for that reason i believe it was improper for judge belsen to grant the individual defendants a motion for summary judgment on the basis of race