[00:00:00] Speaker 00:
Hey.

[00:00:02] Speaker 00:
All the next matter.

[00:00:04] Speaker 00:
In Ray Griffith, Enario Altman, counsel for appellant Guy S. Griffith, Joseph and Brenda Samick, appearing as appellees in pro se.

[00:00:25] Speaker 02:
Okay, Mr. Altman, do you want to reserve some time for rebuttal?

[00:00:28] Speaker 02:
Okay, and remember again that We're relying on you to sort of monitor that if we see you invading it by great amounts We'll let you know okay, not not yet.

[00:00:39] Speaker 02:
Mr.. Semic you can have a seat.

[00:00:41] Speaker 02:
Well.

[00:00:41] Speaker 02:
You know what come out make it appearance Yeah, come on up and tell us who you are

[00:00:45] Speaker 04:
Good morning, Your Honors.

[00:00:46] Speaker 04:
I am the plaintiff in this appellate for the adversary.

[00:00:52] Speaker 04:
Proceeding, Joseph Samick.

[00:00:53] Speaker 02:
Okay.

[00:00:53] Speaker 02:
And will you be handling the argument?

[00:00:56] Speaker 02:
Yes.

[00:00:56] Speaker 02:
Okay.

[00:00:57] Speaker 02:
Thank you very much.

[00:00:58] Speaker 02:
Okay.

[00:00:58] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:00:59] Speaker 02:
All right.

[00:00:59] Speaker 02:
Mr. Altman, go ahead.

[00:01:01] Speaker 03:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:01:02] Speaker 03:
So this case presents an interesting timeline that you don't see very often.

[00:01:08] Speaker 03:
We have a petition filed by the debtor in 6-26-2029.

[00:01:13] Speaker 03:
Plaintiffs filed their case in the California Superior Court in July 10, 2019, and then plaintiffs request relief, which is granted in September 2019.

[00:01:24] Speaker 03:
Then in October 2019, in order to preserve their rights, of course, they filed two adversary proceedings.

[00:01:29] Speaker 03:
They were consolidated.

[00:01:31] Speaker 03:
And then on June 22nd, we begin trial in the adversary proceeding, which ultimately results in a memorandum of decision.

[00:01:42] Speaker 03:
However, the

[00:01:45] Speaker 03:
Proposed order was objected to that Mr. Samick and Mrs. Samick filed on September 1st, 2023.

[00:01:50] Speaker 03:
The plaintiffs were requested by the court to file an order to be lodged, a final order to become the judgment, and that did not happen.

[00:02:00] Speaker 03:
February 2024, the plaintiffs pushed forward the state court trial in which witnesses were sworn in, trial began, and they presented their case, at the end of which the defendant brought a request for non-suit, which was granted as to Mr. Griffith as to all causes of action.

[00:02:23] Speaker 03:
That is a final order.

[00:02:24] Speaker 03:
It has not been appealed.

[00:02:26] Speaker 02:
Why don't we, I think we've,

[00:02:29] Speaker 02:
Got that part pretty well under control here, okay?

[00:02:33] Speaker 02:
Here's the fundamental question I have for you.

[00:02:37] Speaker 02:
By the way, let me just confirm something.

[00:02:39] Speaker 02:
I didn't see anything in the appellant's brief that challenged any of the findings that Judge Albert made with respect to the A2 portion of the decision.

[00:02:49] Speaker 02:
Is that accurate?

[00:02:52] Speaker 03:
That is mostly accurate.

[00:02:55] Speaker 03:
We are appealing the issue on collateral estoppel derived from the state court.

[00:03:01] Speaker 02:
To the extent that he made findings about folks' conduct and whether the A2 standard was satisfied, there's no question that you didn't challenge any of that, correct?

[00:03:13] Speaker 02:
Okay, the challenge was whether he was entitled to complete the proceedings.

[00:03:18] Speaker 02:
That's really it, right?

[00:03:20] Speaker 03:
That is correct.

[00:03:21] Speaker 02:
Well, here's where I need you to give us a hand, because there is issue preclusion and claim preclusion.

[00:03:29] Speaker 02:
They ain't the same thing, right?

[00:03:31] Speaker 02:
There are different standards.

[00:03:33] Speaker 02:
Your brief proceeded under a collateral estoppel issue preclusion theory.

[00:03:40] Speaker 02:
What are the elements of that?

[00:03:45] Speaker 02:
Let me just skip to the point.

[00:03:47] Speaker 02:
Isn't one of the elements that the matter was actually and necessarily decided in the prior action?

[00:03:54] Speaker 02:
Correct, Your Honor.

[00:03:55] Speaker 02:
Okay.

[00:03:55] Speaker 02:
But then as you proceed through the argument, you seem to be kind of slipping into a claim preclusion argument when you cite Roybal and other cases for the proposition that in the res judicata slash claim preclusion context, a basically

[00:04:12] Speaker 02:
Default or other procedural terminations can be a final judgment right?

[00:04:20] Speaker 02:
So which which are you which are you proceeding on do you can't if you're proceeding under both?

[00:04:24] Speaker 02:
Please explain how that works because if you're proceeding under collateral estoppel issue preclusion I Don't see how you can get there from what happened in the state court.

[00:04:33] Speaker 02:
There was no actual determination of the issues in the state court and we'll get into why in a minute or two but

[00:04:41] Speaker 02:
You know, just without getting into who said what to whom in the state court, which is a whole other issue, just doctrinally, how do you want us to use collateral estoppel to get where you want us to end up?

[00:04:52] Speaker 03:
So in the state court, you have a determination on a non-suit which goes under California law to all of the elements of the causes of action that were alleged.

[00:05:03] Speaker 03:
So all of the elements that were there, all the facts that were alleged in the complaint were deemed not applicable to Mr. Griffith, that they did not substantiate a judgment.

[00:05:13] Speaker 03:
So it's an unusual situation because normally you'll see a default judgment entered and there there's a question as to whether it's actually litigated.

[00:05:22] Speaker 03:
Here there was a trial.

[00:05:23] Speaker 03:
People showed up at trial.

[00:05:24] Speaker 03:
They testified.

[00:05:25] Speaker 02:
But who was it who presented a case for the samex in connection with claims against Mr. Griffiths?

[00:05:34] Speaker 02:
Did that happen?

[00:05:36] Speaker 03:
That did happen.

[00:05:37] Speaker 03:
I think he was Mr. Samick was pro se.

[00:05:40] Speaker 02:
Well, I'm sorry.

[00:05:41] Speaker 02:
They presented a case in state court against Mr. Griffiths.

[00:05:45] Speaker 03:
That's correct.

[00:05:47] Speaker 01:
But he had been dismissed.

[00:05:48] Speaker 02:
He'd been dismissed.

[00:05:49] Speaker 02:
I mean, my goodness.

[00:05:51] Speaker 02:
Can we get on the same page here?

[00:05:53] Speaker 03:
He was still a litigant at the time of the state court trial in February 2024.

[00:05:59] Speaker 02:
All right.

[00:06:01] Speaker 02:
Was he or was he not dismissed on the theory, by the way, that what had occurred before those three exceptionally long days in front of Judge Albert in that trial, and by the way, I've read that transcript more than once, wasn't the disposition in the state court that Mr. Griffiths was basically dismissed from the Samick State Court complaint because there had been a prior determination?

[00:06:28] Speaker 03:
That was not in the final ruling.

[00:06:30] Speaker 03:
He was dismissed from the case on the non-suit motion itself at trial.

[00:06:37] Speaker 02:
Okay, let me try this again, okay?

[00:06:40] Speaker 02:
Was there or was there not a request that Mr. Griffith be dismissed from the state court action because there had already been a trial of the same issues between the same parties before Judge Albert?

[00:06:58] Speaker 03:
there was a request to dismiss him from the trial itself based on the elements presented at state court trial.

[00:07:07] Speaker 03:
There was, and so I'm clear, there was a discussion in the state court proceeding also about whether to dismiss him because of the bankruptcy proceeding that had been ongoing.

[00:07:19] Speaker 03:
But at the state court trial itself, on the motion for a non-suit,

[00:07:25] Speaker 02:
Okay, let me let me let me ask you this then okay?

[00:07:31] Speaker 02:
We're getting into things that that happened in state court I don't I mean help tell me how the record here is going to support any of the things you're saying Other than you think there was an answer

[00:07:43] Speaker 03:
Well, we have the docket number 259.

[00:07:46] Speaker 03:
We have in there a copy of the state court order, which provides in, I'm paraphrasing a little bit, that Mr. Griffith is dismissed.

[00:07:57] Speaker 03:
The lawsuit is granted, Mr. Griffith is dismissed as to all causes of action.

[00:08:01] Speaker 02:
Well, if he was dismissed because the matter had been already determined by Judge Albert, who cares about the rest?

[00:08:09] Speaker 02:
What's the point?

[00:08:11] Speaker 02:
Why is it, why is it, my problem is I just, I can't pull apart, and I think my panel mates may be in the same position, you seem to be relying on collateral stopple and res judicata bolt, and it don't work that way.

[00:08:25] Speaker 02:
So tell me how you get where you want to be by issue preclusion, where the issues were not tried in the state court.

[00:08:34] Speaker 03:
Well, again, the issues were tried in the state court.

[00:08:37] Speaker 03:
Mr. Samick went through the entire presentation of his case.

[00:08:43] Speaker 02:
Against Mr. Griffiths?

[00:08:44] Speaker 03:
Against Mr. Griffiths.

[00:08:45] Speaker 02:
Oh, my goodness.

[00:08:46] Speaker 02:
Where on the record can we find that?

[00:08:48] Speaker 02:
Nowhere, right?

[00:08:50] Speaker 02:
Is that on the record now?

[00:08:52] Speaker 03:
That's in the court proceeding itself.

[00:08:54] Speaker 03:
In docket number 259, we have an exhibit which is the ruling.

[00:08:59] Speaker 02:
That's the ruling.

[00:09:00] Speaker 02:
Does that indicate that there actually were issues presented in testimony presented against Mr. Griffiths?

[00:09:06] Speaker 02:
I mean, this is directly contrary to what seems to have happened at the beginning of the trial.

[00:09:16] Speaker 03:
I believe that the exhibit, the number 259, does include a description of what went on at trial, witnesses, things like that.

[00:09:25] Speaker 03:
And then at the end of that, that's when the motion for non-suit was brought.

[00:09:28] Speaker 02:
Okay.

[00:09:33] Speaker 02:
If I were you, I'd just continue.

[00:09:35] Speaker 03:
Okay, very good.

[00:09:43] Speaker 03:
We'd also argue, Your Honor, that there was an abuse of discretion in finding plaintiffs as Investor J. The court recognizes in his memorandum, the late Judge Albert recognizes in his memorandum of decision that there is no actual evidence that connects the plaintiffs to being Investor J, but that it's inconceivable that they could not be Investor J. I think where the court is stating that it's obvious that there is no evidence that actually connects these two,

[00:10:12] Speaker 02:
Well didn't, I mean, sorry to interrupt you, but didn't he also go on to say, I'm not relying on that, I'm going to independently determine issues of securities law violations?

[00:10:21] Speaker 03:
He also argued that it was... Well, he didn't argue anything, he ruled, okay?

[00:10:26] Speaker 02:
All right.

[00:10:27] Speaker 02:
Well, didn't he go out of his way to say, I'm not relying on the, you know, the privity investor J argument?

[00:10:35] Speaker 03:
He did, but at the same time, he spent a lot of time going out of his way to talk about the connection with Investor J. So I am just covering that on a scale.

[00:10:42] Speaker 02:
Well, did you challenge in any way the independent findings and conclusions that he seemed to come to with respect to the securities law violations?

[00:10:52] Speaker 02:
Independent of the privity Investor J is?

[00:10:55] Speaker 02:
I didn't see those being challenged in your brief.

[00:10:56] Speaker 02:
Is that right?

[00:10:58] Speaker 03:
At trial, but not after trial.

[00:11:02] Speaker 02:
OK.

[00:11:03] Speaker 02:
All right, well, you're at five minutes.

[00:11:04] Speaker 02:
If you want to stop now, you can.

[00:11:06] Speaker 02:
If you want to keep going, that's totally up to you.

[00:11:09] Speaker 03:
Understood.

[00:11:11] Speaker 03:
Last issue has to do with Section 308A of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.

[00:11:16] Speaker 03:
And again, this has to do with if the plaintiffs are insisting that they are investors, that their remedy is through the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, is through the SEC, which had come to a judgment.

[00:11:31] Speaker 03:
It's collecting on behalf of all of the parties and you can't be You can't proceed both as an investor and also with your own independent cause of action and Unless you have any questions with that.

[00:11:43] Speaker 02:
I would rest okay anybody No, that's again.

[00:11:47] Speaker 02:
No, okay?

[00:11:48] Speaker 02:
Well you still have four minutes, so we'll hear from the sammix, and then you can make a rebuttal Thank you come on up

[00:11:57] Speaker 04:
I'd like to read off mine if I could The timer did not reset.

[00:12:04] Speaker 02:
Oh You've got 15 there you go, okay, okay?

[00:12:10] Speaker 04:
Okay, your honors.

[00:12:10] Speaker 04:
I'm the appellee and prevailing creditor in the adversary proceeding the bankruptcy courts July 28th 2023 memorandum of decision after trial docket number 216

[00:12:21] Speaker 04:
found the appellant debtor's debt non-dischargeable under 11 USC 523A2A and A19, following a full trial.

[00:12:30] Speaker 04:
The ruling was final, supported by detailed findings, and remains legally intact.

[00:12:34] Speaker 04:
Docket number 300 is the monetary amount of the judgment entered

[00:12:39] Speaker 04:
on March 10, 2025.

[00:12:43] Speaker 04:
Federal rule of bankruptcy procedure 8002A1 requires a notice of appeal be filed within 14 days after the judgment order decree is entered on the docket.

[00:12:54] Speaker 04:
Because the bankruptcy court's memorandum of decision, document 216, was entered on July 28th and no qualifying post trial motion under rules 7052, 9023, or 9024 were filed to total the deadline.

[00:13:08] Speaker 04:
The appeal window closed or should have closed.

[00:13:10] Speaker 02:
Did you make this argument in your Apple lease brief?

[00:13:14] Speaker 02:
I'm not sure.

[00:13:15] Speaker 02:
Okay.

[00:13:15] Speaker 02:
I don't remember that you did.

[00:13:17] Speaker 02:
If you're arguing this is untimely,

[00:13:19] Speaker 02:
Yes.

[00:13:20] Speaker 02:
Okay, then we wouldn't have jurisdiction.

[00:13:22] Speaker 02:
That's a pretty big deal.

[00:13:23] Speaker 02:
I don't remember seeing that in the appellee's brief.

[00:13:26] Speaker 02:
I may not have.

[00:13:27] Speaker 02:
Okay.

[00:13:28] Speaker 02:
Use your time anyway you want, but I just want to let you know that, I mean, if that were the case, we'd have to sort of, we'd have no ability to determine this.

[00:13:35] Speaker 02:
We would not have jurisdiction, okay?

[00:13:37] Speaker 04:
Okay.

[00:13:39] Speaker 04:
Okay.

[00:13:39] Speaker 04:
Which, the appellant failed to file a notice of appeal within the 14-day window following the bankruptcy court's July 28th of 23 memorandum of decision after trial.

[00:13:49] Speaker 04:
ruling resolving the dischargeability was independently final and appealable.

[00:13:54] Speaker 04:
The appeal now before this court is untimely and procedurally barred under 8002.

[00:13:59] Speaker 04:
The March 27th judgment merely quantified liability.

[00:14:03] Speaker 04:
It did not reopen the, I'm sorry, the March 10th judgment

[00:14:08] Speaker 02:
Quantified liability did not reopen the discharge ability issue or restart the clock the July of 23 the court did subsequently Entered findings and conclusions well after the memdech, right?

[00:14:21] Speaker 04:
Okay, well

[00:14:24] Speaker 04:
The appellant now attempts to challenge that outcome by invoking a subsequent state court dismissal and mischaracterizing the SEC judgment.

[00:14:33] Speaker 04:
These arguments are procedurally incoherent and legally unsupported, as you guys were discussing with the appellant's counsel.

[00:14:42] Speaker 04:
Okay.

[00:14:43] Speaker 04:
The prior July 28th dischargability ruling was final and appealable under FRBP 7054 and FRCP 54B.

[00:14:52] Speaker 04:
The appellant failed to file a notice of appeal within the 14-day window.

[00:14:57] Speaker 04:
And he could have appealed the decision of the judge at that point in time.

[00:15:02] Speaker 04:
And I'm a little bit confused as to whether he's just appealing the dollar amount, which he agreed to.

[00:15:09] Speaker 04:
I believe it's document 287 or 284.

[00:15:13] Speaker 04:
The 14-day window required by rule 8002 should have been exercised in August of 2023.

[00:15:27] Speaker 02:
Okay.

[00:15:28] Speaker 02:
Can I skip to something else?

[00:15:30] Speaker 04:
Yes, sir.

[00:15:31] Speaker 02:
I think we've heard there's a time limit to this argument.

[00:15:35] Speaker 02:
So a couple of things.

[00:15:37] Speaker 02:
First of all, what I think I read in the brief and what I think you just indicated was that for purposes of what needed to happen between the MemDec and the judgment, in your view, it was simply a math issue, right?

[00:15:52] Speaker 02:
I mean, there were two big transactions complained of.

[00:15:55] Speaker 02:
One was the RSTI and the other one was Bridgegate.

[00:15:59] Speaker 02:
And at the end of the day, once Judge Alpert said Bridgegate is not going to, there won't be any liability there.

[00:16:06] Speaker 02:
It's simply a matter of from the complaint taking the different elements of damages and just doing a simple subtraction.

[00:16:13] Speaker 02:
That's your theory, right?

[00:16:14] Speaker 02:
Correct.

[00:16:14] Speaker 02:
Okay.

[00:16:15] Speaker 02:
So the judgment was nothing more than subtraction?

[00:16:18] Speaker 04:
Correct.

[00:16:19] Speaker 02:
Okay.

[00:16:20] Speaker 02:
All right.

[00:16:20] Speaker 02:
Secondly, do you want to comment at all?

[00:16:22] Speaker 02:
I mean, I feel a little bit perilous getting into what happened in state court, but my sense is that your understanding of that is a little different, perhaps, from the appellant's counsel.

[00:16:32] Speaker 04:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:16:33] Speaker 04:
So in state court, when we were preparing the trial briefs and prior to that, Mr. Griffith became a mere witness.

[00:16:40] Speaker 04:
Mr. Griffith's trial brief, I believe it was, I gave it to you on judicial notice, I don't know if you looked at it.

[00:16:47] Speaker 04:
Mr. Griffith himself also discussed with me in emails and filed a trial brief.

[00:16:51] Speaker 04:
There was no causes of action against him, just his partner's co-defendant, Martin Russo, which was the financial advisor that facilitated

[00:17:02] Speaker 02:
I mean, I think we're on kind of thin ice here generally because I we only have so much in the record about this But to the extent that you simply had a different understanding of the legal impact of that I want to give you a chance to tell us what you think that is that's all well Mr.. Griffith invoked race judicata Therefore he became a mere witness and was dismissed under race judicata by the court prior to the commencement of the trial

[00:17:30] Speaker 04:
Right, he remained as a witness or during the trial.

[00:17:33] Speaker 01:
So it was your understanding that he knew about the determination in the bankruptcy court, moved the state court to let him out of the state court proceeding.

[00:17:46] Speaker 01:
You ultimately agreed to let him go since you had a determination in the bankruptcy court.

[00:17:52] Speaker 01:
And that's when you allowed the non-suit to be entered, effectively leaving your claims only as against Mr. Rousseau.

[00:18:03] Speaker 04:
Correct in part, but it was not a non-suit.

[00:18:06] Speaker 04:
They keep saying non-suit.

[00:18:08] Speaker 04:
The non-suit was denied, and it was dismissed.

[00:18:13] Speaker 04:
Judge Harmon requested that I dismiss him under race judicata because of the brief and because we already had a judgment, and I was told this is a one-judgment court system.

[00:18:23] Speaker 02:
Well, I mean, technically, you didn't have a judgment at that point.

[00:18:26] Speaker 02:
I know your point is you didn't need one.

[00:18:28] Speaker 02:
The memdeq was final enough.

[00:18:30] Speaker 02:
So I'm not going to argue with you about that.

[00:18:33] Speaker 02:
But it's a little curious that there seem to be lots of references to judgments in the state court when there really wasn't quite one yet in the bankruptcy proceeding, right?

[00:18:45] Speaker 04:
Understood.

[00:18:46] Speaker 02:
No, but I know you're making another argument.

[00:18:48] Speaker 02:
I'm hearing you.

[00:18:49] Speaker 04:
In that instance, Mr. Griffith denied.

[00:18:53] Speaker 04:
We went back and forth two or three times.

[00:18:55] Speaker 04:
He put a stay on the case.

[00:18:57] Speaker 04:
I had to terminate my attorney for not filing the proper paperwork and double charging me for stuff that had already been presented, and I had to take over the case myself.

[00:19:09] Speaker 04:
I couldn't afford further counsel.

[00:19:12] Speaker 02:
That was with respect to the bankruptcy and the delay between... That was in the bankruptcy case and that's a partial explanation for the delay between the memorandum decision and the ultimate judgment.

[00:19:23] Speaker 02:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:19:23] Speaker 02:
Okay, thanks.

[00:19:24] Speaker 02:
Appreciate it.

[00:19:25] Speaker 04:
So, but the appellant's misuse of race judicata and collateral estoppel, the appellant is attempting to use the subsequent superior court case dismissal based on race judicata to invoke collateral estoppel against the bankruptcy court's prior 523 judgment.

[00:19:43] Speaker 04:
Although you're saying it may not have been a judgment because it wasn't signed, but Mr. Griffith now in his fifth bankruptcy filing

[00:19:53] Speaker 04:
at the age of 46, delay tactic after delay tactic after delay tactic.

[00:19:58] Speaker 04:
Three judges have found now against him for fraud.

[00:20:04] Speaker 04:
And of course, that's what he does.

[00:20:07] Speaker 04:
He builds a business under an LLC, attaches it to another LLC, closes it down, steals people money, and weaponizes the court system.

[00:20:15] Speaker 02:
No offense, we can't make any findings of factors, so I know that you believe that passionately, but

[00:20:21] Speaker 04:
Okay, also back to the dual misuse of the SEC consent order.

[00:20:28] Speaker 04:
Appellant's position is internally inconsistent.

[00:20:32] Speaker 04:
On one hand, he claims the SEC judgment offers no collateral estoppel because it was entered by consent.

[00:20:38] Speaker 04:
On the other, he argues that the same judgment somehow precludes the appellee and prevailing creditor, myself, from independently enforcing my own non-dischargeability claim.

[00:20:48] Speaker 04:
Both arguments fail as far as I'm concerned.

[00:20:51] Speaker 04:
The appellant cannot now disavow the SEC order he consented to.

[00:20:56] Speaker 04:
To avoid trial he accepted the findings and those findings support But they do not dictate the bankruptcy court's judgment the adversary decision Stands on its own merits and should be affirmed Well, I mean it's your position the judge Albert made independent findings with respect to both a 2 and a 19 Exactly and the record also shows that okay, you know I

[00:21:23] Speaker 04:
In Ray Mason 709 F2D 1313 Ninth Circuit 1983, the court emphasized that finality is determined by substance, not labels.

[00:21:34] Speaker 04:
The SEC order was entered by consent, but it remains a valid administrative determination under 523A19.

[00:21:39] Speaker 04:
Now, going back to, sorry about that.

[00:21:55] Speaker 04:
The timeliness of this, the prior July 28th of 23 dischargability ruling was final and appealable, like I said, under 7054 and FRCP 54.

[00:22:06] Speaker 04:
The appellant failed to file a notice of appeal within the 14-day window, okay.

[00:22:13] Speaker 04:
However,

[00:22:15] Speaker 04:
The March 10, 2025 monetary judgment merely quantified the damages.

[00:22:22] Speaker 04:
It did not reopen dischargability, and this completely aligns with the holding and in-race slimic 928F2D304 Ninth Circuit 1990.

[00:22:32] Speaker 04:
which the Ninth Circuit held that a judgment is final if it ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment, which is exactly what the July 28, 2023 memorandum of decision did.

[00:22:46] Speaker 04:
And also in the holding in Ray Belli 268 BR 851 bankruptcy appellate 9th circuit 2001, the court confirmed that a dischargeability ruling is final and appealable even if the monetary amount is determined later.

[00:23:01] Speaker 04:
And it constitutes a final judgment for purposes of rule 8002.

[00:23:05] Speaker 04:
The debtor missed the deadline and the appeal is untimely.

[00:23:10] Speaker 04:
The July 23 memorandum of decision resolved dischargeability in full.

[00:23:16] Speaker 04:
In Ray Slimick and in Ray Bailey, the ruling was final and appealable.

[00:23:21] Speaker 04:
The March 25 judgment merely, the March 2025 judgment in the state court, first dismissal, merely, or I'm sorry, the March 25 judgment in the bankruptcy court merely quantified the damages.

[00:23:35] Speaker 04:
That's it.

[00:23:42] Speaker 02:
Are you ready to submit on that basis?

[00:23:46] Speaker 04:
I believe document 284 was the appellant and his attorneys agreement to the amount of which is a record submitted by the appellant is the amount of the judgment they determined it should be which aligned with the amount that I determined.

[00:24:06] Speaker 02:
Okay.

[00:24:08] Speaker 02:
Any questions Judge Neiman?

[00:24:12] Speaker 02:
Questions, Judge Gannon?

[00:24:13] Speaker 02:
Okay, thank you very much.

[00:24:14] Speaker 01:
Appreciate it.

[00:24:15] Speaker 02:
No, it's all right.

[00:24:17] Speaker 02:
Okay, Mr. Albin, you've got, I think, a little over four minutes.

[00:24:25] Speaker 03:
Yes, thank you, Your Honor.

[00:24:26] Speaker 02:
Okay, go ahead.

[00:24:27] Speaker 03:
As a preliminary matter, we wanted to take a moment to object to the new submissions that the appellee has made today and also at the time they filed their responding brief, not mentioned in their issues.

[00:24:40] Speaker 02:
If you want to leave it at that, we can take it from there.

[00:24:43] Speaker 03:
Got it.

[00:24:44] Speaker 02:
OK, thank you.

[00:24:45] Speaker 03:
The one last thing is I just want to read from document number two fifty nine is in regards to the and not a lot just in regards to the collateral stable issue.

[00:24:55] Speaker 03:
So this is the ruling from the court from the state court after three p.m.

[00:25:00] Speaker 03:
that day when they had been in trial.

[00:25:02] Speaker 03:
The court says for hearing defendant Guy Griffith's motion to be dismissed.

[00:25:08] Speaker 03:
Court makes findings.

[00:25:09] Speaker 03:
The court's tentative ruling is to deny.

[00:25:11] Speaker 03:
Plaint motion for dismissal by defendant Guy Griffith is then withdrawn.

[00:25:15] Speaker 03:
Plaintiff rests their case.

[00:25:17] Speaker 03:
Motion by counsel for defendant Martin Russo and defendant Guy Griffith regarding non-suit is called for hearing

[00:25:23] Speaker 03:
argument presented by counsel and plaintiffs.

[00:25:44] Speaker 03:
As a matter of California law, Guy Griffith, as to all of these causes of action, is now dismissed.

[00:25:52] Speaker 03:
And this is a situation, it is procedural, but at the same time, it is substantive, because you have... Well then, can I, let me help you out here, I think, okay?

[00:26:02] Speaker 02:
Now we're talking about claim preclusion, right?

[00:26:05] Speaker 02:
We're not talking about, and you didn't argue that in the brief, but let's say you did.

[00:26:10] Speaker 02:
Go ahead and play it forward as claim preclusion.

[00:26:12] Speaker 02:
Why would it make sense?

[00:26:14] Speaker 03:
It would make sense because all of the underlying elements alleged in each of the claim in the complaint under California law when you have a Dismissal of this nature with prejudice all of those elements are kicked out now.

[00:26:29] Speaker 02:
Well, let's let's let's go back to some basics Okay, the point of what's the policy behind claim preclusion?

[00:26:36] Speaker 03:
To eliminate duplicative and needless litigation, okay?

[00:26:39] Speaker 02:
Well, how is this duplicative because judge Albert suffered through a three-day trial and

[00:26:44] Speaker 02:
Okay, I mean how would Giving issue preclusion effect to what happened in the state court avoid anything duplicative He already had the trial he already had the trial

[00:26:59] Speaker 03:
already had the trial, but the judgment was not final.

[00:27:02] Speaker 03:
And it was more than just an administrative issue or a clerical issue.

[00:27:06] Speaker 03:
Damages had not been decided.

[00:27:09] Speaker 03:
While the word bifurcate was never utilized in the adversary proceeding, essentially this proceeding was bifurcated into a liability issue and then a damages issue.

[00:27:18] Speaker 02:
We have absolutely no evidence of that whatsoever in the record.

[00:27:21] Speaker 02:
Zero.

[00:27:22] Speaker 02:
If you want to keep arguing about why res judicata would be applicable here, you can.

[00:27:29] Speaker 02:
But the problem is, Res Judicata is meant to prevent a subsequent litigation about a matter that was or could have been brought in a prior piece of litigation.

[00:27:39] Speaker 02:
I just don't see how that fits the scenario here at all.

[00:27:42] Speaker 02:
So help me out with that part.

[00:27:49] Speaker 03:
I have nothing further to add.

[00:27:51] Speaker 02:
Okay.

[00:27:53] Speaker 02:
All right.

[00:27:53] Speaker 02:
If you want to submit on that basis, I'll ask my colleagues if they have any questions.

[00:27:56] Speaker 02:
Judge Neiman, no?

[00:27:58] Speaker 02:
Judge Gann, how about you?

[00:27:59] Speaker 02:
No.

[00:27:59] Speaker 02:
Okay.

[00:28:01] Speaker 02:
Thank you both for your very good arguments, and I know this is notwithstanding the sort of hot bench you got here, Mr. Altman.

[00:28:08] Speaker 02:
I very much appreciate your attempts to articulate something in a really different scenario than we normally see.

[00:28:15] Speaker 02:
So it's very helpful and thank you so much.

[00:28:17] Speaker 02:
Okay, the matter's submitted and we'll get you a decision as soon as we can.

[00:28:22] Speaker 02:
Okay, thank you both and thank you to the SAMACs as well.

[00:28:24] Speaker 02:
Thanks.

[00:28:25] Speaker 02:
Okay.

[00:28:25] Speaker 02:
No, no problem at all.

[00:28:27] Speaker ?:
Okay.