when this particular claim of rose then rose almost two years after the f t s he was appointed as receiver for the for cattle bank this claim seems to be with with the state court proceedings even with the think we have to assume at this stage of the proceedings of course that everything alleged in complaints is true the only effect assuming you know there's a claim and there's a rule but it would help i think if we went through your claims the real question is is there jurisdiction in the federal court to do anything about what you're complaining about so if i what you just said is you know that the state court didn't have jurisdiction in your view if i look at your first claim i read it to say that you want us to declare the state judgment void is that correct that's correct your honor and so given the state of the law on rooker feldman i'm just to be candid i'm hard pressed to figure out with the claim stated so clearly like that and match that up against the record fell when cases which say that federal court would have jurisdiction do you have any contrary authority that would give us your stiction to decide that first claim well i believe of when you see a story if a judgment is a boy he can it can be challenged at any time at and in our particular situation now but that's a different statement i mean you can challenge through the state court process of course the jurisdictional taking by a state court and you can challenge that up through the california court of appeals and maybe even on up to the california supreme court but if you have a state court judgment and then you're really coming in you're saying to the federal court i'd like you to look at the state court i'd like you to declare that the state court judgment is void because it didn't have jurisdiction that seems to fall squarely in what the supreme court has said the federal courts don't have the authority to do and you know just some degree there was sort of some passing in the night in the briefs on the subject because your arguments tended to come back to the to the substance of why you felt the state court might be wrong but before we we have to just distill maybe that's true just  i i recognize that if this court in this course believes that it does not have the jurisdiction to avoid the state court judgment the particular cases over but in this particular situation and this may be one of the only exceptions a lawyer there's always other exceptions but the to me this is almost the only exception to her feldman is where the lower court judgment is void because the lower court lacked any jurisdiction to be carrying this type of whether they're right or wrong no matter what the decision is on that claim it is a claim and because it is a claim that gave the federal courts exclusive jurisdiction now that issue also has been raised at our feel and for us that was the end of the story with respect to this litigation and would be the end of the story except that the state courts had no jurisdiction to ever hear any of this case appeal in the state court action the the basis for that appeal was the was the reformation of the f b i see settlement agreement that was enter into all over two years after the fi agreement that's not documented where that's and that's contrary to the written documents which is the subordination that term an agreement that it was always the intent of the bank and the borrower and valley well i you know i can't your point that you can come to federal court if there is and you know if there is exclusive jurisdiction in the federal courts and there was no jurisdiction in the state court and you predicate your theory i guess you right so in if you were correct on that there certainly would be some leeway because it would be a case that should could only have been brought here to begin with and shouldn't have been prosecuted in the state court but if we look at that statute you started with the issue of timing and i agree with you timing is important and i think you said that there your claim arose an can fill in the blanks so if you file that in two thousand and four by that time there is no f d i c status as a receiver for this situation so how does the summary that it says there's a promissory note and here is fourteen pieces of property that secure the promissory note you give me three hundred thousand dollars and i'll give you these these two assets which have been well what happened when the final judgment contract never should have been performed but for the state courts decided to do to go along with that and i should say the state court decided to go along with that but the coffee at that this case has been appealed twice in the case and there's two of those reaching i know there's a number one and number two in the first case it's my understanding that the that the court of appeals asked the same question with respect to and it may not have been a terminations receivership but demand with them which we did the f b i says response was that i have no assets and then we have no overseer i'm missing something here as i understand it the state court enter judgment two years after the f terminated its receivership receivership didn't exist when the state court judgment was entered and correctly your argument goes to the statute which directs  jurisdiction towards receivership two years seems a long time to carry over some type of jurisdiction how how is there any involvement with the receivership two years they terminat two years before the state judge and what's happening here is that you have a breach of contract and so you're looking at as factual limitations but at the same time we're bringing in which effective relief can be granted if you represent the f t i say that's correct your honor could you start by responding to the argument that been made for nineteen and a half minutes that indicates that so long as a cause of action arises when there is an f b i so the receiver then the statute does not bar the action and even though the receivership had been terminated two years before the state action the cause of action a rose prior to that have been sort of most of them have been sold and definitely he raised the question of a cause of action say there is a cause of action against the f b i so you as a receiver and it's a valid cause of action but the receivership is terminated and it goes on are you saying that that cause of action that's a valid cause of action for breach of contract disappears as far as the f d i c receiver is concerned that's correct if so what is the statute or the case that says that the statute is eighteen twenty one d five c two i know the statute does it say specifically in there that valid cause of action are waived or eliminated once the receiver has been terminat cause of action a judgment or is it just mean i have a cause of action for fifty thousand dollars a client in the receiver in receivership your on you first have to file in the administrative claims process against the receiver and then when you get a decision you can go to court if it's adverse or the time expires but and if you don't file your claim within the time period either by the bar date or by the end of that statutory period then  court can ensure a judgment against you what's the best case that you have for that position basically the murphy case and all the other cases that i cited in relationship to  against the receiver but claims must be filed either within the time period that you're given by a letter when that would if the f t c know that you've got a claim against its will send you a letter and say get your claim in by x date or by the statutory time period which actor omission of the receiver it was kind of an odd situation here because i kind of hear two claims one is when counsel files on the have a hendrix in federal court and says i now have a claim against the c and that's really what caused the whole upset to begin with so let's take that one first was the f d i c a party we were not a party and we were not affected the order that they entered ordered the hendricks terms of us not being a party and there being no right to injunctive relief against us we were not affected that's the reformation of the settlement agreement that's correct to be the f d i c and that was kind of a new claim with you want that's now made in the federal  that's correct and we're arguing not directly against the f b i i think that's correct and we're arguing that's moot because if there were the receivership if there's no assets from which we can recover nobody liable for and alternatively that the claim was not timely filed because it was filed in march of two thousand and four and that was after the receivership terminated and under that section i gave you eight hundred twenty one d five c two you've got to file your claims in time to have a permit painted from the receivership  section the other section in other words if there had been a claim under that in the state court you would concede that that probably would have had exclusive jurisdiction in the federal court right it was the plaintiffs a court against a receivership for a claim that had gone through the process we would say you would need that second clause to kind of clarify that that includes assets that the corporation got itself as receiving the corporation is in its corporate capacity so our view is that neither one of those sections provide an independent morning i name is very edwards and i represent valley view development what i would like to mention this morning is basically that the state court sound at the time and the argument was that the original understanding of the parties including capital bank was that the valley view property develop entered into the agreements with the borrower and that i believe that the best evidence of the fact that it was not an asset of the f d i c is that when the f t c filed a creditor claim in the bankruptcy of just non disturbance agreement those agreements were executed by the capital bank they were also capital bank was also a site signatory on the lot split and  approved that so all of these documents existed prior to the time that the f d i c took possession and there were no secret documents or secret agreements that were not disclosed to the bank or to the f b i see for that indemnity claim as basically the appellant is asking my clients who want nothing to do with this dispute to pay his attorneys fees so we can keep on litigating and with respect to that dispute simply a question of contractual interpretation we prevailed on that issue on summary judgment we weren't even in the case when the decision about whether there was a reformation of the agreement was in fact decided and we shouldn't be in this case regardless of how the court determines the dispute between value on one hand and hendrix on the other well i guess my question is maybe it's a technical one but i think that the district court put everything under worker feldman and wasn't really clear to me that your client you know your slice of the pie and what you're being sued on really falls in record feldman as opposed to either claim preclusion or something asset we're talking about is the assets in the pockets of my client so i mean it's your claim that there's this is your position that there's no claims stated i mean there are these are different important articulate legal theory so will give my time i must support as many other questions to council i have some questions about record comment and i don't know when you have a large group of all players you don't know which one is the hitter  preclusion under the state judgement but unfortunately we have had no briefing of the state law on claim preclusion so i wonder if you have to avoid the judgment in the federal court and i believe that there isn't any evidence that have been or any argument that supports the fact that the record feldman position well i think there's some question about whether the end and at least there's a question of whether the indemnity claim is covered by record film because it doesn't say to say just sort of side the state judgement claim certainly could be argued that recur feldman doesn't exist for the indemnity claim unfortunately as i pointed out i have not found i could be mistaken i haven't found any california briefing on a california claim also the breach of the settlement contract appears to me at least there's a question that could be raised that it doesn't challenge the state court judgement so there are some issues that maybe the district court may or may not have been correct as to record film and having the sweep that he would have and then whether or not there may be alternative reasons why we might affirm your record from and doesn't apply issues at that point in time with regard to whether or not there was an injunction that should be granted and whether or not recur feldman apply to all of the contested issues brought up by the plaintiffs at that time which ones and we have to do this defendant by defendant i mean my claim in your view which of these claims that are made by the hendricks is your client