contract to trigger application of california civil code section seven hundred and seventeen dollars the district court found that the relevant underlying action on is forced delivery of the agreement the words being focus i believe it's the most clearly in the court denying the st the request that we made was for approximately sixteen thousand dollars in fees and costs that point to rethink the encouraging prevailing in the tory relief creditors that interpretive action and action to interpret the contract is within the scope of the attorney fees i'm not sure that requires interpretation of the enforceability of a contract if it requires an interpretation of favor of the lender in the event of could could you help me look at the right document i'm looking at the security agreement and it's hard for me to find exactly what was a dish you just know it's actually in the if not the term loan agreement nine of the u c c which is security interests and personal property and looks like just security agreement that you would have together with a loan not to make this case sound like start to feel like the case with the complexity there with an earlier article my sale that resulted in point three hundred and sixty getting the assets that it had so this is the sale agreement from the  debtor to medley that sold its assets to point three hundred and sixty dollars and so that's what's called a sale agreement and sale agreement article by there was two agreements that go with this sale agreement once the assets landed in the about ten lines down in paragraph one point one it says following the closing and i'll wait for your honour's to find those words following the clos declare that the debtor had the right to use the proceeds and then that's folded into the plate confirmation which was next in which those proceeds were used to fund the plan and that to me that  a clear error of the two the clearer it is that the adversary proceed with clearly an action on the contract to clear the right under those that contract which comes within the thirty vision of the group now i've got another that's sixteen thousand did you already get the sixteen thousand that never got it when i went in for it after at the adversary proceeding it was included in my favor by quite a favor the court held that it was assets instead of having them i may get mixed up if they try to point to sixty one on that but then the confirmation of any plan involves a whole lot of other considerations side's burden urged the court not to give you the whole half one million just the sixteen thousand cars only sixteen thousand was about the contract dispute so i asked for all of it and so i did the hours and expenses relating to that summary judgment proceeding in well certainly on the average very pretty that's absolutely true that with the that it's already been isolated from the st time i asked for it the harder part is when we have the i believe it medleys burden in the report will say that you can allocate they went all the way to the other side of the equation because they don't give them anything at all but my analogy and my argument below and in this board is that the analogy is to to contract claim in california court you can get be cut to claim you can't get a particular usually this sort of contract in the same lawsuit at the same time and so what the courts find is that if the fees cannot as a practical matter be separated that they're all allowed because the action arose partly under the contract and so that's the analogy i would bring forth here and i would submit that that fits under penrod because penrod although the chapter thirteen and not as complicated simpler and more straightforwardly only contract the rest of confirmation looks like it isn't wondering is here's what i'm thinking you've got one piece of this great confirmation has been accomplished now it's not too soon to say anymore and they say ok it was too soon to say before now we can say we want the whole half one million why isn't medleys burden to say no only sixteen thousand was on the contract because they were denied as premature for the declared her release action bill that was always broken out in fact i resubmitted my a motion with a request for judicial notice to the court where we were seeking the fees i don't i don't impractical to apportion the confirmation yet it's a compensation why are you not going on why are you not now judicially is stopped from changing your business your honor i don't think it's a change of position argument has always been that the confirmation fees where we were doing a confirmation trial of all the issues that was with the discovery happening all at once and the confirmation proceeding under one thousand one hundred and twenty nine all at once was impractical to allocate the resubmit of but that's not seeing his vision council that you asked for the whole five hundred thousand you never said to the court well if you're not going to give me five hundred thousand i'll take sixt clearly on page sixty seven of the motion i don't know how i could break it out any more than that but that's so this quarter i can't remember for sure what the british said about this i don't recall it saying the district court to give us the sixteen if it determined that we weren't entitled to the five hundred and we're asking you to reverse the district court's decision not to give us the sixteen if we were also to your orders on an appendix page for fifty two which is medically to inject into the plan where medley effectively answering the plan thanks here is our position why you can't confirm this plan at me hearsay you cannot confirm that where because of our contract right i had to overcome those contract rights to confer it on that line of this up on all fours with enron and i believe that the ultimate finding that this action whether it be the adversary proceeding or confirmation with an action on the contract is the st step to a reversal and with that thank you very much better and thank you