[00:00:04] Speaker 01: All right. [00:00:06] Speaker 01: Yes. [00:00:08] Speaker 01: I apologize. [00:00:09] Speaker 01: I didn't know that I'm not supposed to use the computer, but I have my arguments on the computer. [00:00:16] Speaker 01: Just the excerpts I have put it on. [00:00:18] Speaker 01: I didn't know my first time. [00:00:20] Speaker 03: Oh, this is your first time arguing? [00:00:22] Speaker 01: Yes. [00:00:22] Speaker 01: OK. [00:00:22] Speaker 01: I apologize. [00:00:24] Speaker 03: You can use your computer and make your argument. [00:00:28] Speaker 03: Thank you. [00:00:28] Speaker 03: Sorry. [00:00:33] Speaker 03: I guess you got used to Zoom where everybody just read their arguments off their computers. [00:00:43] Speaker 01: There is a mistake in our request in both the opening brief and reply brief asking for the [00:00:51] Speaker 01: Barton motion which was granted by Judge Kaufman in bankruptcy court to apply to non-bankruptcy claims because for non-bankruptcy claims we don't need Barton permission. [00:01:04] Speaker 01: We meant pre-petition, pre-bankruptcy petition. [00:01:07] Speaker 01: claims which is from October 5th to October 11, 2017 because the petition for Chapter 11 was filed on October 11 and from the 5th to 11 there were some non-bankruptcy conduct and also bankruptcy conduct. [00:01:26] Speaker 00: Why aren't you bound by the Court of Appeals decision on that, that the pre-petition claims are covered? [00:01:33] Speaker 01: Correct. [00:01:35] Speaker 01: The Court of Appeal decided, and we are not disputing that, that in the first amended complaint, which was Demorto, plaintiff had only claimed bankruptcy conduct, and the Court of Appeal said they all need Barton permission, and that's the reason. [00:01:54] Speaker 01: Based on that, the [00:02:00] Speaker 01: ruling of the Court of Appeal or the decision on the second page of their opinion, which stated expressly, because Akhlaqpur has demonstrated a reasonable possibility that she can amend her complaint to state a cause of action, [00:02:18] Speaker 01: and because the trial court's dismissal with prejudice would preclude her even from later seeking leave from the bankruptcy court to refile, will reverse the judgment and affirm in part and reverse in part the trial court's rulings with directions to grant Aghlakhpur leave to file a second amendment. [00:02:38] Speaker 00: What about at 306 where it says that it appears reasonably possible that Aghlakhpur could amend [00:02:47] Speaker 00: to state facts supporting occurrence after acts or omissions. [00:02:53] Speaker 00: But indeed, as a result of our other rulings, she may proceed only with claims arising from conduct after February 6, 2018, in any event. [00:03:01] Speaker 01: That's the reason we are here, because it is a 32-page long opinion. [00:03:06] Speaker 01: On the second page of the opinion, it says we reverse the dismissal from with prejudice to without prejudice, because it seems [00:03:16] Speaker 01: Akhlaqpur can amend and go and get a Barton permission. [00:03:21] Speaker 01: Because if Court of Appeal was limiting its decision only for after February 6, 2018, the court already decided there is no need for Barton permission. [00:03:31] Speaker 01: The court expressly said after February 6, 2018, once the trustee was appointed and Akhlaqpur was not in possession of her estate, Barton doesn't apply because the trustee was [00:03:45] Speaker 00: But that seems to ask us to inquire into, one might say, review the Court of Appeals decision, which you must concede we can't do under Rooker Feldman. [00:03:57] Speaker 01: Correct. [00:03:58] Speaker 01: And BAP said that because of Rooker Feldman, the federal court or your court does not have jurisdiction to change it, and we agree with that. [00:04:12] Speaker 01: But the Court of Appeal decision expressly said we are changing the dismissal with prejudice to without prejudice for those pre-petition period in order for plaintiff to get a Barton permission. [00:04:25] Speaker 00: And do you understand the Bankruptcy Court's original Barton order to clear the way towards bringing those pre-petition claims to you? [00:04:34] Speaker 01: Yes, it was in our motion for Barton Motion that we filed after the Court of Appeal ruling. [00:04:40] Speaker 01: We asked Bankruptcy Court Judge Kaufman to allow us both for pre-petition and after February 6, 2018. [00:04:47] Speaker 01: And Judge Kaufman said, no, there is no need for after February 6 because Court of Appeal says no need for Barton Motion. [00:04:55] Speaker 01: But there is a need for Barton Motion for October 5 to October 11. [00:05:03] Speaker 01: pre-petition, pre-Chapter 11 petition conduct of defendants, Orontes and Solorzano. [00:05:09] Speaker 01: That was the ruling of Judge Kaufman in bankruptcy court. [00:05:11] Speaker 01: And that's the ruling of bankruptcy court which defendants appealed to BAP, which reversed and said, no, we cannot do it. [00:05:18] Speaker 00: But why wouldn't the order be clearer there? [00:05:21] Speaker 00: I mean, the order simply says that you may proceed, continue to prosecute your claims. [00:05:28] Speaker 00: Why isn't the best reading of that, continue to prosecute your claims in light of [00:05:33] Speaker 00: the Court of Appeals limitation of those claims or is your argument really that the Court of Appeals left the door open to the state trial court to allow you to pursue pre-petition claims not withstanding its disposition? [00:05:49] Speaker 01: We only are relying on Court of Appeal decision. [00:05:52] Speaker 01: We are not bringing any declaration, any facts outside the four corners of the Court of Appeal decision, which on second page, even BAP considered, let me read off of the... [00:06:06] Speaker 01: We can see that the language chosen by the Court of Appeal might have been ambiguous up to a point. [00:06:13] Speaker 01: It might have meant, and then it goes through different scenarios. [00:06:17] Speaker 01: So even BAP is interpreting what Court of Appeal meant. [00:06:21] Speaker 01: But the express language of Court of Appeal on the second page of the opinion... Could you give us the reporter's site? [00:06:31] Speaker 01: For the Court of Appeals. [00:06:34] Speaker 00: No, I'm sorry, you're saying the second page of the Court of Appeals opinion. [00:06:36] Speaker 01: Yes, definitely. [00:06:37] Speaker 01: I will give it to Your Honor. [00:07:01] Speaker 00: We just want to make sure that we're on the same page. [00:07:03] Speaker 00: Yes. [00:07:04] Speaker 01: I'm so sorry. [00:07:05] Speaker 01: I had it on my computer. [00:07:06] Speaker 00: Which paragraph is it? [00:07:07] Speaker 00: Can you remind us what the paragraph begins with? [00:07:09] Speaker 01: It is on page 239 of the citation. [00:07:12] Speaker 01: I just don't have the citation in front of me. [00:07:15] Speaker 01: 86 Cal app, fifth, page 239, and the ER for that. [00:07:23] Speaker 01: That's the one that I have. [00:07:24] Speaker 03: We don't need the ER. [00:07:25] Speaker 03: The case side is correct. [00:07:28] Speaker 03: Why don't you read the sentence you're referring to? [00:07:30] Speaker 01: Yes, it says because Akhlaqpur has demonstrated a reasonable possibility that she can amend her complaint to state a cause of action and because the trial court's dismissal with prejudice would preclude her even from later seeking leave from the bankruptcy court to refile, will reverse the judgment and affirm in part and reverse in part [00:07:58] Speaker 01: the trial course ruling with directions to grant a law course leave to file a second amendment complaint. [00:08:05] Speaker 03: It is on the- So from that language, what did you do? [00:08:09] Speaker 03: You took this to mean that you could- that some of your claims didn't require the Barton permission? [00:08:16] Speaker 01: Correct. [00:08:17] Speaker 03: Okay. [00:08:17] Speaker 03: But you nonetheless went back to the bankruptcy court to get permission for claims that you thought covered the period while [00:08:28] Speaker 03: the lawyer was representing your client until the point where the trustee was appointed by the bankruptcy court? [00:08:38] Speaker 01: No, the Court of Appeal already, the State Court of Appeal already ruled that from the time that defendants, attorneys for debtor had filed for an application for fees and because [00:08:54] Speaker 01: Akhlaqpur did not dispute those fees, which was from October 11, 2017 up to February 6, 2018. [00:09:02] Speaker 01: Restricted Carta applies. [00:09:05] Speaker 01: Because of Restricted Carta, even if it had gotten Barton's permission, they're off the table. [00:09:11] Speaker 01: So what claims are you arguing are on the table? [00:09:15] Speaker 01: Right now, what is on the table for this court to make a decision is the conduct between October 5th to October 11, 2017, which here in this paragraph that I just read, it says it requires a Barton permission. [00:09:33] Speaker 03: So you went to the Bankruptcy Court to get permission for those? [00:09:38] Speaker 03: Just those five. [00:09:40] Speaker 03: Five, six days. [00:09:42] Speaker 03: Okay. [00:09:42] Speaker 03: And then the Bankruptcy Court let you [00:09:46] Speaker 03: gave you permission, and then we have the decision you're appealing from, which reversed the bankruptcy court and said Rooker-Feldman bars the bankruptcy court from exercising that. [00:10:01] Speaker 03: So that's what you're challenging today. [00:10:04] Speaker 03: Correct. [00:10:04] Speaker 03: The application. [00:10:05] Speaker 03: So why is Rooker-Feldman not applicable? [00:10:09] Speaker 01: First of all, Rutger Feldman, the first requirement is that the losing party cannot ask a federal court to reverse what the state court has ruled. [00:10:20] Speaker 01: First of all, Akhlaqpur was not losing, actually. [00:10:22] Speaker 01: She prevailed in having the case reinstated in the state court because it was dismissed. [00:10:27] Speaker 01: So it was reversed, and a good part of it, that the case got reinstated. [00:10:31] Speaker 01: And the Court of Appeal allowed her to, you know, [00:10:36] Speaker 03: So is that part that was allowed to be pursued in state court, is that still going forward in the state court? [00:10:42] Speaker 01: Yes, yes, we have a trial now. [00:10:44] Speaker 03: So now you have a trial? [00:10:46] Speaker 03: Yes. [00:10:46] Speaker 03: On that part? [00:10:47] Speaker 03: Correct. [00:10:48] Speaker 03: Okay. [00:10:50] Speaker 03: So you just wanted to amend that part, that case, to add the claims that were subject to the bankruptcy court's jurisdiction. [00:10:59] Speaker 01: for those five days, correct? [00:11:01] Speaker 01: Pre-petition filing, which we already got a pardon permission from bankruptcy court, which was reversed by BAP. [00:11:07] Speaker 03: Okay, so what we're looking at is, does Roker-Feldman apply or not? [00:11:13] Speaker 01: Well, I think Rucker-Feldman applies. [00:11:15] Speaker 01: What we are requesting is not for the... You're saying it's not covered by it. [00:11:20] Speaker 01: Exactly. [00:11:22] Speaker 01: I think BAP has made a mistake in just reading the disposition part of the Port of Appeal, which was on last page of the Port of Appeal opinion, and totally disregarded the part that I read so far twice. [00:11:39] Speaker 01: which is on page 230. [00:11:41] Speaker 00: But just before the part that you read, the Court of Appeals says, however, the Barton Doctrine did not require Aglipore to obtain leave to file claims arising out of Bankruptcy Council's representation after the appointment of the trustee. [00:11:56] Speaker 00: Because Aglipore has demonstrated reasonable probability that she can amend her complaint to state a cause of action, [00:12:03] Speaker 00: It seems like that's susceptible to a reading that that cause of action would be only that pertaining to the post-official period. [00:12:13] Speaker 01: Well, then why does it say? [00:12:14] Speaker 01: Because the post-appointment of the trustee, the Court of Appeal, stated there is no need for Barton's motion. [00:12:22] Speaker 01: So why this paragraph says, if we don't dismiss it without prejudice, plaintiff cannot go back and get permission from bankruptcy court. [00:12:33] Speaker 00: Well, I guess I'm trying to understand here in terms of where the trial court left it. [00:12:38] Speaker 00: The state trial court left it was to dismiss all the claims of prejudice. [00:12:46] Speaker 01: The one that happened in 2020? [00:12:48] Speaker 01: Yes. [00:12:49] Speaker 01: The entire complaint was dismissed with prejudice. [00:12:52] Speaker 00: And so as you just noted, the result of the Court of Appeals decision was to give your client another [00:13:03] Speaker 00: opportunity to amend, but amend to show which claims. [00:13:12] Speaker 00: And at the beginning and at the end, it says that it's discussing the post official claims, the later claims, not your October claims. [00:13:20] Speaker 01: I agree, which we did. [00:13:22] Speaker 01: But because of this paragraph that I read already, it said that we are allowing this without prejudice in order for plaintiffs to be able to get a Barton permission from bankruptcy court. [00:13:36] Speaker 00: So in that context, that's why you said that what the bankruptcy court then did is allow claims that the Court of Appeals had disallowed. [00:13:47] Speaker 01: I don't think the Court of Appeal disallowed. [00:13:49] Speaker 01: There is an inconsistency between the part that I just read from Court of Appeal opinion and the disposition. [00:13:56] Speaker 01: Disposition says plaintiff can go ahead and amend and add. [00:14:01] Speaker 01: claims after February 6, 2018. [00:14:04] Speaker 01: That's the disposition last page. [00:14:06] Speaker 01: However, on the page that I just read it, it says, because Akhlaqpur has demonstrated a reasonable possibility that she can amend her complaint to state a cause of action and because the trials were dismissed with prejudices would preclude her even from later seeking leave from the bankruptcy court to refi. [00:14:25] Speaker 01: And we underlined and we [00:14:27] Speaker 01: emphasize the seeking leave from the Bankruptcy Court, why would Court of Appeal say that, state that, if Court of Appeal didn't allow plaintiffs to go and get a Barton permission from Bankruptcy Court? [00:14:40] Speaker 00: Well don't we, aren't there some cases that suggest that the post official period also could potentially affect the administration of the estate under Barton? [00:14:49] Speaker 01: The Court of Appeal didn't say that. [00:14:52] Speaker 01: There are cases that have been [00:14:54] Speaker 01: discussed by the appellee and defendants. [00:14:56] Speaker 01: But the Court of Appeal said no need for Barton motion for after February 6, 2018 once. [00:15:04] Speaker 01: the defendants were not the attorneys that were out of possession. [00:15:09] Speaker 01: So we are only going with the court of appeal decision. [00:15:12] Speaker 01: We are not going anywhere beyond what the court of appeal has. [00:15:16] Speaker 03: And I would like to read also, I think it's a- They're saying you're not challenging the court of appeal decision in any way. [00:15:23] Speaker 03: We are not. [00:15:24] Speaker 03: You're following it. [00:15:25] Speaker 03: Yes. [00:15:26] Speaker 03: Okay. [00:15:26] Speaker 03: Well, you're just about out of your time. [00:15:28] Speaker 03: So why don't we hear from the other side? [00:15:34] Speaker 02: Good morning your honor may it please the court my name is Corrine Birch and I represent the appellees it it appears that council has completely misread the Court of Appeals opinion and I agree with the court's questioning on [00:16:03] Speaker 02: the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, the bankruptcy court's order clearly usurped the Court of Appeals' opinion. [00:16:12] Speaker 02: The Court of Appeal stated that under Barton they had to request leave to amend before filing the lawsuit for the pre-petition and debtor in possession claims, and those claims are now dismissed. [00:16:26] Speaker 02: The court was very clear on that. [00:16:30] Speaker 02: The Court of Appeals stated [00:16:32] Speaker 02: The Barton Doctrine required Aglipore to obtain leave of the Bankruptcy Court in order to sue Orantes in a forum other than the Bankruptcy Court. [00:16:42] Speaker 02: Having failed to do so, she cannot proceed with these malpractice claims in state court. [00:16:48] Speaker 02: It can't be any more clear. [00:16:50] Speaker 02: The court goes on to explain what claim she can amend, discusses that there's limited amendment to attempt to, [00:17:01] Speaker 02: state claims after the trustee was appointed, which is after February 6, 2018. [00:17:08] Speaker 00: Okay. [00:17:08] Speaker 00: Do you contest, Ms. [00:17:09] Speaker 00: Burchie, that regardless of what the bankruptcy court was asked to do or maybe what it [00:17:18] Speaker 00: was doing with its short order that Ms. [00:17:24] Speaker 00: Aglopour can proceed on those post-official conduct claims then in the trial court with amendment? [00:17:34] Speaker 02: That's what the California Court of Appeal found, that yes, you can proceed with those if [00:17:42] Speaker 02: they're able to allege standing to pursue those claims. [00:17:45] Speaker 00: And you don't contest that for these purposes. [00:17:49] Speaker 00: Not for these purposes today. [00:17:50] Speaker 00: The post-official claims, whether they were ever covered by Barton at all, which is your friend's argument, or whether they, even if they were covered by Barton, that the bankruptcy court's Barton order to continue read narrowly at least allows them to proceed on that. [00:18:08] Speaker 00: Those are still in play and there's no controversy over that, the post-official claims. [00:18:13] Speaker 02: Correct, Your Honor. [00:18:14] Speaker 02: This case is about the pre-petition and debtor in possession claims. [00:18:18] Speaker 03: So are you saying that if you can never cure your failure? [00:18:22] Speaker 03: So Barton is just about subject matter jurisdiction. [00:18:26] Speaker 03: Why shouldn't someone be able to cure like if they didn't go to the Barton court and the state court said go to the bankruptcy court and get Barton permission and then the state court says I can't exercise jurisdiction over these claims because you didn't get permission you didn't bring them into bankruptcy court or you didn't get permission from the bankruptcy court to bring them in front of me so therefore I have no jurisdiction dismissed and [00:18:55] Speaker 03: The odd thing here is that it went up to the Court of Appeals because I would have thought immediately Aguipur would have gone directly to the Bankruptcy Court, gotten the permission and come. [00:19:07] Speaker 03: But I don't see any reason, I haven't seen any argument why someone shouldn't be able to cure their failure to get permission by doing exactly what Aguipur did here, which is that [00:19:23] Speaker 03: especially given the language of the Court of Appeal decision that says she needs to get Barton permission and the Court of Appeals reversing the Superior Court as to the remainder of the claims, I don't see any reason in law or in our precedent that supports a conclusion that you can't, having misfiled in the wrong jurisdictional [00:19:50] Speaker 03: venue your claim subject to pardon, you shouldn't be able to later say, okay, stay those claims or dismiss those claims because you don't have jurisdiction and I'll go back to the bankruptcy court and I'll get approval. [00:20:07] Speaker 03: I don't see how that's an attack on what the Court of Appeals ruled. [00:20:12] Speaker 03: I don't see or even a challenge to what the Court of Appeals ruled. [00:20:16] Speaker 03: that the other claims could go forward. [00:20:19] Speaker 03: I don't see any precedence as you can't cure your failure to have initially gone to the bankruptcy court to get permission. [00:20:29] Speaker 02: Well, that was addressed in a bankruptcy court in Ray Sedgwick that we cite in our brief, that you cannot go back and seek retroactive permission to pursue a lawsuit that [00:20:46] Speaker 02: lacked subject matter jurisdiction because they failed to follow the Barton rule. [00:20:50] Speaker 02: The Barton rule itself says a party must first obtain leave of the bankruptcy court before it initiates an action in another form. [00:20:58] Speaker 02: That's a Ninth Circuit opinion. [00:20:59] Speaker 02: That's the in-ray crown vantage. [00:21:02] Speaker 02: There's no binding authority for this court to allow retroactive permission. [00:21:07] Speaker 02: That would go against the entire purpose of the Barton rule, which is [00:21:13] Speaker 02: The doctrine protects the bankruptcy court's overriding interest in the administration of the state. [00:21:18] Speaker 00: But what difference does it make if, particularly here, where the claims were dismissed, that's even worse than a stay for the debtor, the former debtor. [00:21:27] Speaker 00: They didn't go anywhere. [00:21:28] Speaker 00: There was no exercise of jurisdiction, whether or not it was contested. [00:21:32] Speaker 00: And now the parties are put in exactly the place they would have been had the court pre-cleared it in a Barton. [00:21:40] Speaker 00: Ms. [00:21:41] Speaker 00: Aglipore can amend and that they move forward. [00:21:45] Speaker 02: I appreciate the question, Your Honor, but I disagree that they're put in the same position that they were. [00:21:51] Speaker 02: I mean, one of the purposes of the Barton motion is to serve several purposes. [00:21:58] Speaker 02: The first one, I said, to oversee the administration of the estate, and the second, to shield court-appointing attorneys from [00:22:06] Speaker 02: unnecessary litigation. [00:22:23] Speaker 02: obtained this permission ahead of time. [00:22:26] Speaker 00: But how would that have stopped? [00:22:29] Speaker 00: We're in this odd position where, and it's part of our federalism, that the state courts are allowed to proceed going forward. [00:22:41] Speaker 00: But the fact that it went up to the Court of Appeal, that would have happened regardless. [00:22:44] Speaker 00: That would have happened if the bankruptcy court denied the Barton motion, right? [00:22:51] Speaker 02: I guess they could have appealed the denial of the Barton motion. [00:22:54] Speaker 02: But if they had granted the Barton motion, allowed it to proceed in the state court, there would never have been that appeal. [00:23:02] Speaker 00: Right. [00:23:02] Speaker 00: But this isn't a kind of, at least I don't view the cases as providing a sort of, I mean, it has the effect retrospectively of an official act's immunity. [00:23:12] Speaker 00: But this idea that it prevents them immunity from litigation, I'm just not even sure how that's supposed to work, given that we [00:23:20] Speaker 00: that the state court was allowed to have the first word on the matter. [00:23:25] Speaker 00: That litigation happened. [00:23:26] Speaker 00: And the opportunity to stop that litigation was the proceeding in front of the bankruptcy court. [00:23:31] Speaker 00: I mean, I guess why was your client, could your client have done more to head off this state litigation if that was really your view of the purpose of Barton? [00:23:45] Speaker 02: I'm not clear on the court's question. [00:23:48] Speaker 00: Well, I mean, you've given two reasons. [00:23:51] Speaker 00: The second reason in terms of the practical administration of the estate, and I'm sure that is fully protected by a retroactive Barton order. [00:23:59] Speaker 00: The first reason you gave is that the official in this case, the attorney, should not be subject to the litigation to begin with. [00:24:09] Speaker 00: I don't see [00:24:10] Speaker 00: How is anything we could do here, how would that fix the fact that the claims were filed and resolved even under Barton in the state courts? [00:24:20] Speaker 02: I'm not saying that my client wouldn't have been subject to the litigation to begin with. [00:24:23] Speaker 02: There was an application for attorney's fees in the bankruptcy court and all of this could have been decided in the bankruptcy court. [00:24:32] Speaker 02: under that application for fees if there was some issue with my client's representation. [00:24:38] Speaker 00: That's taken us to the merits now. [00:24:39] Speaker 00: I guess just on the Barton piece, I don't see why it should make a difference. [00:24:48] Speaker 00: Let's say the court acknowledges and says instead of continue, [00:24:52] Speaker 00: It says that they can restart litigation or that all of the litigation prior is void, but Ms. [00:25:00] Speaker 00: Aglapur can refile and assume that the state courts are fine with that. [00:25:04] Speaker 00: What difference does that make going forward? [00:25:07] Speaker 00: Now you have a new case. [00:25:08] Speaker 00: It's fully authorized. [00:25:09] Speaker 00: Nothing has formally happened until after the Barton order. [00:25:13] Speaker 00: Why is it a material difference in that scenario, which I think [00:25:19] Speaker 00: follows your logic, that you can only do it before, versus what happened here. [00:25:25] Speaker 02: There's consequences for failing to follow the procedural rules. [00:25:29] Speaker 02: There's all sorts of rules that we have to follow. [00:25:33] Speaker 02: And one of the consequences that the debtor has tried to circumvent is the application of the statute of limitations. [00:25:42] Speaker 02: That's why [00:25:44] Speaker 02: they filed a very specific Barton motion to ask the court to allow them to continue prosecuting a case where the court never had subject matter jurisdiction. [00:25:55] Speaker 02: She is trying to avoid having to refile [00:26:00] Speaker 02: and another form, another state court action. [00:26:04] Speaker 00: But why is that the Barton Doctrine's concern at all? [00:26:07] Speaker 00: That has nothing to do with the policy behind federal bankruptcy jurisdiction. [00:26:13] Speaker 03: That's all a state issue. [00:26:14] Speaker 03: Yeah, and indeed, in Ray Harris, we held, our court held that the Barton Doctrine is not a tool to punish the unwary by denying any form to hear a claim when leave of the bankruptcy court is not sought. [00:26:30] Speaker 03: and that's effectively what you're attempting to do here by using the [00:26:36] Speaker 03: Barton Doctrine as a sword. [00:26:37] Speaker 03: Now there may be all sorts of strategic and tactical and other things going on in this case that we're not aware of but right now we're trying to just consider what is the Barton Doctrine which to me is a tool for determining which court has jurisdiction of what claims so that we don't accidentally get bankruptcy related claims or claims that are necessary to resolve the estate as a whole decided in two [00:27:06] Speaker 03: at the same time. [00:27:07] Speaker 03: So once it's cleaned up and we determine the bankruptcy court isn't going to exercise jurisdiction over this claim and that the state court may, then it should be able to proceed. [00:27:22] Speaker 03: I mean, we're not supposed to punish people with this doctrine. [00:27:27] Speaker 03: I agree. [00:27:28] Speaker 03: This is kind of a case of first impression. [00:27:30] Speaker 03: It really is. [00:27:31] Speaker 03: And, you know, I think obviously it might warrant publication to just clarify some of these things more because there's been loose language in many of the cases. [00:27:40] Speaker 03: But I just don't see it as a punitive tool or that its purpose in the first place. [00:27:46] Speaker 03: I mean, the only court that could have given permission to proceed either in its by itself or elsewhere [00:27:56] Speaker 03: is the bankruptcy court. [00:27:58] Speaker 03: It had exclusive jurisdiction to make that determination. [00:28:02] Speaker 03: Now she's done it right. [00:28:03] Speaker 03: And so we're going to punish her for not doing it right the first time? [00:28:11] Speaker 02: I'm not saying that she's being punished and she doesn't have a forum. [00:28:16] Speaker 02: The Barton Doctrine says that you have to seek leave before filing a lawsuit in another forum. [00:28:24] Speaker 02: But you can still proceed in the bankruptcy court. [00:28:27] Speaker 03: But the bankruptcy, as I understand, those bankruptcy proceedings are over with. [00:28:31] Speaker 03: And the bankruptcy court itself said, OK, you can go have this claim heard in the state court. [00:28:40] Speaker 02: She has the option of attempting to reopen the bankruptcy court. [00:28:45] Speaker 02: There is a form for her. [00:28:46] Speaker 00: But the whole point of Barton, right, was the bankruptcy court's declining to exercise the jurisdiction and said, no, I'm good. [00:28:52] Speaker 00: We'll let the state courts proceed with it. [00:28:54] Speaker 02: That's because there was an ongoing lawsuit and I believe that there was a misreading of or a misargument to the bankruptcy court as to what the court of appeal opinion said. [00:29:07] Speaker 03: But the bankruptcy court could read it. [00:29:10] Speaker 03: Yes. [00:29:11] Speaker 03: And interpret it for itself to the extent there was any ambiguity in the court of appeal decision. [00:29:20] Speaker 02: The state court's not the only forum. [00:29:22] Speaker 02: There's the bankruptcy court. [00:29:24] Speaker 02: There's other forums. [00:29:25] Speaker 02: There's the district court. [00:29:27] Speaker 02: The Court of Appeal opinion has been very clear that these claims are dismissed in that action. [00:29:35] Speaker 02: So going back to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, the bankruptcy court's order saying, yes, you can proceed is directly contradictory. [00:29:44] Speaker 00: Proceed on what? [00:29:46] Speaker 02: On the prepetition claims and the debtor in possession claims. [00:29:52] Speaker 02: I think we're only talking about the prepetition claims. [00:29:55] Speaker 00: How clear are we? [00:29:56] Speaker 00: I think we have to kind of squint a little bit to try to figure out exactly what the bankruptcy court might have been saying. [00:30:04] Speaker 00: I think your friend says, well, in view of the motion, which was all about the prepetition claims, it can only be read that way. [00:30:10] Speaker 00: Could it be read in a way to simply say, [00:30:13] Speaker 00: play it where it lies in the state court and subject to the state trial court can also read, in fact, they're quite used to reading Court of Appeals' opinions and move from there. [00:30:25] Speaker 00: And so it may be that all that proceeds in the state court and that your friend alluded to a trial date are these post-official claims. [00:30:33] Speaker 00: Can you comment on that? [00:30:35] Speaker 00: I mean, why isn't that a win for you that it's just the post-petition claims, that's all that was authorized? [00:30:41] Speaker 02: Because the bankruptcy court order [00:30:43] Speaker 02: specifically says that they're allowed to proceed with the pre-petition claims in the pending lawsuit. [00:30:53] Speaker 02: So that is directly contradictory to what the Court of Appeal opinion says. [00:31:02] Speaker 03: All right. [00:31:02] Speaker 03: Thank you. [00:31:03] Speaker 03: Does anyone have any other questions? [00:31:06] Speaker 03: Thank you, counsel. [00:31:08] Speaker 02: Thank you, Your Honor. [00:31:09] Speaker 03: You had like six seconds left. [00:31:13] Speaker 03: Six seconds, but I'll give you a minute. [00:31:15] Speaker 01: I just would like to read footnote eight of the Court of Appeal opinion. [00:31:20] Speaker 01: I think it is significant, ER 131. [00:31:23] Speaker 01: We express no opinion regarding the extent to which allegations of malpractice occurring after a trustee appointment could, similar to pre-petition conduct, [00:31:35] Speaker 01: cross the divide and implicate the Barton Doctrine. [00:31:38] Speaker 01: That issue may depend in part on the nature of the allegations Akhloqpour chooses to make in any amended complaint. [00:31:46] Speaker 01: Again, it's discussing getting an amended complaint for pre-petition those five days in October 2017 in that footnote. [00:31:55] Speaker 03: Okay. [00:31:56] Speaker 03: Thank you, counsel. [00:31:57] Speaker 03: Thank you. [00:31:58] Speaker 03: Akhloqpour versus Arantes is submitted.