[00:00:05] Speaker 04: The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is now in session. [00:00:11] Speaker 03: Good morning, counsel. [00:00:12] Speaker 03: Welcome to the Ninth Circuit. [00:00:14] Speaker 03: Before we get to our one argued case today, the panel has five submitted matters that we want to officially submit at this point. [00:00:25] Speaker 03: They are Brenda Campos-Gonzalez versus Bondi, United States versus Villa-Lobos-Galdamez, [00:00:34] Speaker 03: Akwa Mukhe versus American Airlines, Ballard versus Bessignano, and Crete-Bashe versus Providence Health and Services, Oregon. [00:00:47] Speaker 03: Those cases are now officially submitted. [00:00:50] Speaker 03: And we will now hear argument in the case of Kolstad versus Balagian. [00:00:57] Speaker 03: I hope I'm pronouncing that correctly. [00:00:59] Speaker 03: I believe that Mr. [00:01:02] Speaker 03: Monforton, I'm not sure I'm saying that right, is up first. [00:01:07] Speaker 02: Very close, your honor. [00:01:07] Speaker 02: It's Matthew Monforton. [00:01:10] Speaker 03: Very good. [00:01:11] Speaker 02: Good morning and may it please the court, Matthew Monforton for Appellant Todd Kolstad. [00:01:16] Speaker 02: With the court's permission, I'd like to reserve five minutes for rebuttal. [00:01:20] Speaker 03: Keep your eye on the clock, please. [00:01:21] Speaker 03: We'll try to help you. [00:01:22] Speaker 02: Thank you, your honor. [00:01:24] Speaker 02: This appeal turns on two independent errors in the district court's application of collateral estoppel. [00:01:30] Speaker 02: First, the adjudication of HK as a youth in need of care resulted from a stipulation, not actual litigation. [00:01:38] Speaker 02: Second, there was no final judgment on the merits issued by the state court. [00:01:43] Speaker 02: Under Section 27 of the Restatement of Judgments, [00:01:46] Speaker 02: An issue is not actually litigated if it is the subject of a stipulation. [00:01:51] Speaker 02: The transcript for the December 4th show cause hearing shows exactly that. [00:01:56] Speaker 02: The prosecutor requested adjudication, quote, based on the stipulations, close quote. [00:02:02] Speaker 02: Mr. Kolstad's attorney responded by saying, quote, that's appropriate, close quote. [00:02:08] Speaker 02: The state court then adjudicated HK as a youth in need of care. [00:02:12] Speaker 02: i.e. [00:02:12] Speaker 02: a neglected child, quote, given the stipulation and lack of objections. [00:02:18] Speaker 02: There was no testimony, no evidence, no argument. [00:02:22] Speaker 02: Nothing was actually litigated. [00:02:24] Speaker 03: Let's just say, argue, Wendell, that you're correct. [00:02:28] Speaker 03: Why didn't you appeal that or otherwise object to the findings? [00:02:33] Speaker 02: With regard to the state court proceedings? [00:02:36] Speaker 03: Yes. [00:02:37] Speaker 02: Your Honor, to be honest, I wouldn't be able to answer that. [00:02:40] Speaker 02: I was not Mr. Kolstad's counsel in the state proceedings. [00:02:45] Speaker 02: Mr. Kolstad had been advised by his public defender not to fight the system. [00:02:51] Speaker 03: He was told... And I respect that, but I guess what I'm saying is, you know, as a good lawyer, we're bound by rules. [00:03:00] Speaker 03: And if what you say happened, then you should object and say, you know, this is not right. [00:03:10] Speaker 03: We need to do it this other way because it has this impact. [00:03:13] Speaker 03: That didn't happen here. [00:03:14] Speaker 03: And I'm asking, why did that not happen? [00:03:17] Speaker 02: I'm sorry, with regard to the stipulation? [00:03:20] Speaker 03: With regard to the finding, basically, we're based on the stipulation. [00:03:24] Speaker 02: With regard to the findings, those findings were based entirely on the stipulation. [00:03:34] Speaker 02: And perhaps we would have preferred if we could have done it over to have the public defender object, but that didn't happen. [00:03:42] Speaker 02: The question that this court has to confront is whether there's any preclusion based on that order that was issued by the state court either in December or in February. [00:03:53] Speaker 02: Because all of the issues in the state court proceedings were stipulated and therefore not actually litigated, collateral estoppel does not apply, no other preclusive doctrine applies, and therefore Mr. Kolstad ought to be able to proceed on his 1983 claims in this court. [00:04:12] Speaker 03: What is your best case to that effect? [00:04:15] Speaker 03: There's no preclusive effect in light of the way this was handled. [00:04:21] Speaker 02: Well, we would start with Section 27 of the restatement, which states that stipulated... I'm asking for a case. [00:04:28] Speaker 02: Well, the Ninth Circuit's case... [00:04:33] Speaker 02: I can't pronounce the first name, but the McDonald case, the one involving the boundaries of the Navajo reservation, that was a situation where the parties had stipulated in a previous proceeding to the use of a map. [00:04:49] Speaker 02: And because of that stipulation, the Ninth Circuit held that those facts could not be deemed to be actually litigated and therefore not subject to [00:05:00] Speaker 02: collateral estoppel. [00:05:02] Speaker 02: The Montana Supreme Court said essentially the same thing in Lane versus Farmers Insurance, where they said in general, issues that are not actually litigated are not subject to collateral estoppel. [00:05:14] Speaker 02: Now that case involved a default judgment. [00:05:17] Speaker 02: However, it didn't necessarily involve a stipulation, but section 27 of the restatement [00:05:25] Speaker 02: hold squarely that stipulated issues are not subject to collateral estoppel. [00:05:31] Speaker 00: Council, I'm looking at page 338 of the record and well first earlier on 337 the court cites the stipulation but on 338 the court states that you know child should be designated as a youth in need of care by reason of the following facts presented at the hearing and in the record. [00:05:53] Speaker 00: So what's the court [00:05:55] Speaker 00: referring to there? [00:05:56] Speaker 00: Is that only referring to the stipulation? [00:05:58] Speaker 00: It doesn't read that. [00:06:00] Speaker 00: It doesn't read that way. [00:06:02] Speaker 02: Your Honor, what we believe is that all we have as far as what we know of the December 4th show cause hearing is the transcript. [00:06:11] Speaker 02: And as the transcript shows, there was no evidence presented whatsoever and no other indication of any evidence presented at any time during the state court proceedings. [00:06:21] Speaker 02: What it appears to be is that when the state court [00:06:25] Speaker 02: on December 19th memorialized its order that it issued orally on December 4th. [00:06:32] Speaker 02: It probably resorted to boilerplate. [00:06:38] Speaker 02: The importance here is that the collateral stopper requires adversarial testing and not mere repetition of stipulated material. [00:06:48] Speaker 02: The December 4th transcript shows a stipulation and no evidence was offered. [00:06:53] Speaker 02: The additional statements that the state court inserted into its written order on December 19th were drawn from the Bellagian affidavit, but that affidavit was never offered into evidence. [00:07:05] Speaker 02: None of its facts were contested or argued, and therefore they were not actually litigated and not subject to collateral estoppel. [00:07:13] Speaker 00: It might be helpful, I suppose, if you could just take a step back and if you could tell me why it would even be appropriate for us at this stage [00:07:21] Speaker 00: to take judicial notice of the December 4th transcript. [00:07:25] Speaker 00: It's not in the record yet. [00:07:27] Speaker 00: We haven't voted yet whether to grant that motion. [00:07:31] Speaker 00: It seems to me that you're not only asking us to take judicial notice of the fact of the hearing, but also of the contents of that hearing. [00:07:41] Speaker 00: We're making findings, appellate findings now based upon that. [00:07:45] Speaker 00: So why would that even be appropriate at this stage? [00:07:51] Speaker 02: Well, Your Honor, two reasons. [00:07:52] Speaker 02: First, the court [00:07:54] Speaker 02: can take judicial notice of the transcript. [00:07:56] Speaker 02: And second, the court should take judicial notice of the transcript. [00:08:00] Speaker 02: Rule 201D of the Federal Rules of Evidence allows this court to take judicial notice of the transcript at any stage of proceedings. [00:08:08] Speaker 02: And in fact, this court in Wren's Pasta Bella versus Visa did exactly that. [00:08:13] Speaker 02: They took judicial notice of a transcript to determine what issues in a prior proceeding had been actually litigated. [00:08:20] Speaker 02: Not only can the [00:08:21] Speaker 02: is the court able to, the court should, because fairness requires it. [00:08:26] Speaker 02: Mr. Kolstad, the defendants, and the district court were all on the same page about the state court proceedings being decided by a stipulation. [00:08:35] Speaker 02: Now on appeal, the defendants have completely reversed themselves and are denying that the stipulation even existed. [00:08:42] Speaker 02: this court is entitled to rely on an accurate record of what actually happened in the state court proceedings, and more precisely, what was actually litigated in the state court proceedings and what was not actually litigated. [00:08:57] Speaker 00: But because of- But if hypothetically, we disagreed with you, can you still prevail in this case, or do you need that? [00:09:07] Speaker 00: Do you need us? [00:09:07] Speaker 00: Do you need that December 4th transcript? [00:09:10] Speaker 02: The December 4th transcript is obviously very helpful and it provides this court with an accurate version of what actually happened. [00:09:18] Speaker 02: However, we don't. [00:09:19] Speaker 02: There is a there is a second path to victory for us, and that is the record itself, and the. [00:09:29] Speaker 02: the positions taken by the defendants in the district court. [00:09:34] Speaker 02: They repeatedly told the district court that all of the facts were stipulated to, and more importantly, the district court at ER 15 agreed that all of those facts were stipulated to. [00:09:48] Speaker 02: Because of that, the defendants are judicially stopped from denying either the existence of the [00:09:57] Speaker 02: Those representations or those arguments by the defense were made at ER 178 through 182. [00:10:06] Speaker 02: And again, the district court at ER 15 accepted all of those arguments. [00:10:10] Speaker 02: Defendants are now judicially stopped. [00:10:12] Speaker 02: So even without the transcript, [00:10:14] Speaker 02: Your Honor, this court has more than enough just looking at the district court's record to find judicial estoppel and to note that the defendants are simply not able at this time to go back to a completely contrary position. [00:10:32] Speaker 02: And I would also add, not only, I notice I'm running low on time here, so I want to quickly go to my next point, if I may. [00:10:41] Speaker 02: Collateral stop was also inapplicable because there was no final judgment issued by the state court. [00:10:47] Speaker 02: The prosecution filed a neglect petition, then requested its dismissal. [00:10:53] Speaker 02: The state court agreed. [00:10:54] Speaker 02: Under Rule 4182, that's a voluntary dismissal as a matter of law. [00:11:00] Speaker 02: The order was silent as to prejudice and so by rule, it's without prejudice and therefore lacks preclusive effect. [00:11:07] Speaker 02: Moreover, the state could have refiled his petition at any time and it almost certainly would have if, for example, HK's biological mother had later been unwilling or unable to continue caring for HK. [00:11:20] Speaker 02: The state court's dismissal order was not a final judgment either in form or in substance and did not trigger collateral estoppel. [00:11:28] Speaker 02: Unless the panel has any further questions. [00:11:30] Speaker 03: Yeah, I'm going to say you're below your five minutes. [00:11:32] Speaker 03: You want to save the balance of your time for rebuttal? [00:11:34] Speaker 02: Yes, please. [00:11:35] Speaker 02: Thank you, your honor. [00:11:36] Speaker 03: Very well. [00:11:37] Speaker 03: All right. [00:11:38] Speaker 03: So, Mr. Hayhurst, please. [00:11:42] Speaker 01: Thank you, your honor. [00:11:43] Speaker 01: May it please the court, my name is Matt Hayhurst and I represent the defendants and appellees in this case. [00:11:50] Speaker 01: They are the state social workers who are with Montana Child and Family Services and they were the ones who ensured that appropriate medical care was provided to a 14-year-old youth who was acutely suicidal. [00:12:04] Speaker 01: And the good news, and it's always nice to have good news, is that the youth is doing well, safe and sound now. [00:12:12] Speaker 01: So I'm happy to report that. [00:12:14] Speaker 01: The rub is that we are back here in court with the filing of this federal lawsuit. [00:12:20] Speaker 01: And I say back in court, of course, because these issues were already decided at the state court level. [00:12:27] Speaker 01: There's no dispute about that. [00:12:29] Speaker 01: The only dispute is whether the issues were actually litigated to a final judgment. [00:12:35] Speaker 01: And here I would call the court. [00:12:37] Speaker 04: I'm sorry for interrupting you. [00:12:39] Speaker 04: Let me ask you this. [00:12:40] Speaker 04: Do we really need to get into the weeds of the effect of the stipulation and how much was or was not litigated in reviewing the transcript? [00:12:48] Speaker 04: Because the issue is really whether there was a full and fair opportunity to litigate and the voluntary stipulation and the fact that there were no objections. [00:12:57] Speaker 04: I don't see anything in the record that shows there wasn't a full and fair opportunity to litigate. [00:13:04] Speaker 01: would completely agree, Your Honor. [00:13:07] Speaker 01: This case is a lot like what I consider to be one of the more on point cases for the court, which is in Ray Gottheiner. [00:13:16] Speaker 01: That's the Ninth Circuit case dealing with the bankruptcy issue. [00:13:20] Speaker 01: And there you had an unopposed [00:13:23] Speaker 01: summary judgment motion even though the person had counsel they had an opportunity to oppose it the summary judgment motion was unopposed and then there was a ruling and the question was should that ruling be given collateral estoppel effect and the answer was yes under the circumstances there. [00:13:41] Speaker 01: because there had been a ruling on the merits. [00:13:45] Speaker 01: And the court specifically said, and I'm quoting here, that after many months of discovery, Gottheiner decided his case was no longer worth the effort, does not alter the fact that he had his day in court. [00:13:59] Speaker 01: And so we would agree, Your Honor, this is a situation where every opportunity was presented for Mr. Kolstad to challenge these findings. [00:14:08] Speaker 01: He elected not to, even though he filed a couple of petitions for writs with the Montana Supreme Court, he never appealed the order. [00:14:17] Speaker 01: It was never subject to appeal. [00:14:19] Speaker 01: And from our perspective, the three key documents in the record are number one, the 14 page affidavit from Cindy Bellargian, the social worker, that's on page 273, which includes the hospital discharge record. [00:14:34] Speaker 01: Secondly, the state court orders, multiple orders making specific findings based on the evidence. [00:14:42] Speaker 01: These are not boilerplate orders. [00:14:44] Speaker 01: These are orders where the district judge went through the points and specifically found evidence to support her decision making there. [00:14:54] Speaker 01: And then the third key document would be the fact that the record shows throughout that Mr. Kolstad had a full and fair opportunity. [00:15:03] Speaker 01: He had counsel appointed from the beginning and there was simply no appeal made. [00:15:09] Speaker 01: So from our perspective, your honor, the two-part test to determine whether there's a final judgment on the merits is met, and that is whether the issue was effectively raised and whether the losing party had an opportunity to contest it. [00:15:25] Speaker 01: I would also highlight the fact that the affidavit from Ms. [00:15:28] Speaker 01: Bellargian [00:15:29] Speaker 01: went through not only the specific medical issues and her own personal observations that she had seen in investigating this. [00:15:37] Speaker 01: She relayed all of that information. [00:15:39] Speaker 01: She also relayed the fact that the father and the stepmother were declining to allow the transfer for the psychiatric care. [00:15:46] Speaker 01: And she explained the reason as well. [00:15:49] Speaker 01: That is on page 281 and 282 of the record. [00:15:53] Speaker 01: She said to the court that there was a concern about some type of gender-affirming care being provided. [00:16:01] Speaker 01: That was in the record. [00:16:02] Speaker 01: And then the court later found on page 190 of the record that those concerns were, quote, invalid and unsupported. [00:16:09] Speaker 01: So that document's critical. [00:16:11] Speaker 01: And then I would refer the court to the first order from August of 2023. [00:16:15] Speaker 01: That's page 325 of the record. [00:16:19] Speaker 01: And I mention this because in that document, in the very first sentence, the court references that she has read the petition and the affidavit. [00:16:29] Speaker 01: And then she goes on to make specific findings on the next page, 326, in four paragraphs, each time specifically referring to the affidavit. [00:16:39] Speaker 01: And finally, Your Honor, we go to the December 2023 record, which has already been mentioned by the court today. [00:16:46] Speaker 01: And in that document, page 336 really sums it all up, in my opinion. [00:16:51] Speaker 01: It says the court has considered all the evidence. [00:16:54] Speaker 01: It's provided an opportunity for the parent to provide testimony on their own behalf and cross-examine witnesses. [00:17:02] Speaker 01: and now makes the following findings of fact based on the preponderance of the evidence presented at the hearing and in the record, and then goes on as before and makes detailed findings. [00:17:14] Speaker 01: That is exactly a situation why there should be collateral estoppel applied. [00:17:20] Speaker 01: And in fact, that is why in our rationale, the decision should be affirmed for the District Court, which was made by District Judge Susan Waters, who incidentally has 35 years of experience as a practicing lawyer, state court judge, and federal judge. [00:17:35] Speaker 01: Somebody who knows their way around Montana law on collateral estoppel and otherwise. [00:17:41] Speaker 01: The other point that I'd mentioned in the Gottheiner case is that when the court determined that it was going to apply collateral estoppel there, it referenced the discretion of the lower court. [00:17:54] Speaker 01: And that's in the court opinion there in Gottheiner. [00:17:57] Speaker 01: And it says that under the circumstances, we hold that the lower court did not abuse its discretion. [00:18:03] Speaker 01: in giving collateral estoppel effect and agree upon de novo review that collateral estoppel was properly available. [00:18:12] Speaker 01: And so again, you see a situation just like we have here where there was an opportunity for the other party to contest the issue. [00:18:19] Speaker 01: They did not contest it and they were bound. [00:18:22] Speaker 01: And the fact that they decided at the last minute to change their position does not change the full and fair opportunity to be heard. [00:18:30] Speaker 01: As a second case, and I do think it's important, is the case called Weaver versus Checker. [00:18:35] Speaker 01: This is a district court case, so it's obviously not binding on this court, but this is from the Northern District of California in 2022. [00:18:44] Speaker 01: And I mention the case because it closely parallels what happened in Gottheiner. [00:18:48] Speaker 01: You had a motion to compel arbitration that was not opposed by the plaintiff, and the issue was whether that order should be given preclusive effect. [00:18:57] Speaker 01: And there's a couple things that were important there. [00:18:59] Speaker 01: the district court said, I'm gonna look to the restatement and I'm going to apply collateral estoppel and quoted section 27 comment D of the restatement, which says, quote, when an issue is properly raised by the pleadings or otherwise and is submitted for determination and is determined, the issue is actually litigated. [00:19:24] Speaker 01: And indeed, that's exactly what happened here. [00:19:27] Speaker 01: The second question about the kind of the rule 41 issue, I'm happy to touch on that briefly. [00:19:35] Speaker 01: And I think the district court's analysis here was spot on on page 14. [00:19:40] Speaker 01: She summarized the analysis in three sentences and I think she got it right. [00:19:45] Speaker 01: She referenced the fact that the motion to dismiss the case never referenced rule 41. [00:19:51] Speaker 01: It's nowhere in there. [00:19:53] Speaker 01: Instead, what it's referencing is Montana's specific statutory framework for this type of situation under section 41.3.4.38 sub 3D. [00:20:05] Speaker 01: And that subsection specifically says that the court may enter its judgment, may order placement with the non-custodial parent, and dismiss the proceeding. [00:20:15] Speaker 01: And so it's a situation where we have a specific state statute in this sort of unique area providing the mechanism for this relief that's provided. [00:20:26] Speaker 01: It's not inconsistent with Rule 41 because Rule 41B [00:20:30] Speaker 01: contemplates that a dismissal not under this rule is an adjudication on the merits. [00:20:36] Speaker 01: And that's precisely what happened here. [00:20:39] Speaker 01: And of course, the case of NRA SS really brings this to bear and explains whether this is an appealable order under Montana law. [00:20:49] Speaker 01: Well, in Montana, you can't appeal an issue [00:20:52] Speaker 01: unless it's a final order, absent some exceptions that don't apply here. [00:20:56] Speaker 01: And so the court found that it indeed was an appealable order. [00:21:00] Speaker 01: So that's a helpful case for the court to look at. [00:21:07] Speaker 01: Unless there are other questions, I'm happy to wrap up early and save a little bit of time for the court. [00:21:12] Speaker 03: God bless you. [00:21:13] Speaker 03: Any questions by my colleagues? [00:21:15] Speaker 03: I'm good. [00:21:16] Speaker 03: Thank you. [00:21:16] Speaker 03: All right. [00:21:17] Speaker 03: Thank you very much, Mr. [00:21:20] Speaker 03: Juan Fortan, you have some rebuttal time. [00:21:23] Speaker 02: Thank you, Your Honor. [00:21:25] Speaker 02: Let me begin by picking up on a point that Judge Wynn raised a moment ago with regard to the full and fair hearing requirement of collateral estoppel. [00:21:34] Speaker 02: It's important to keep in mind, as this court held in Janjua versus Neufeld, that the full and fair opportunity [00:21:42] Speaker 02: requirement and the actually litigated requirement are two separate requirements for collateral estoppel. [00:21:49] Speaker 02: Both have to be met and both are separate. [00:21:52] Speaker 02: We concede that there was a full and fair hearing in this matter. [00:21:56] Speaker 02: We do not concede that anything was actually litigated in the state court proceedings. [00:22:01] Speaker 02: And that's why collateral estoppel, that's one of the reasons why collateral estoppel was [00:22:08] Speaker 02: by the District Court. [00:22:10] Speaker 02: With regard to the Gottheimer case that was cited by my opponent a few moments ago, Gottheimer is a very different case. [00:22:20] Speaker 02: The prior case in Gottheimer involved what this court referred to as extensive discovery that went on for 16 months, followed by a motion for summary judgment that was ultimately granted. [00:22:30] Speaker 02: By contrast, there was no active participation by Mr. Kolstad in the state court proceedings, and that's shown in E.R. [00:22:38] Speaker 02: 193 and 194. [00:22:41] Speaker 02: That's where the state court gives a procedural history of the proceedings in the state court. [00:22:46] Speaker 02: On August 25th, there was an emergency ex parte order, followed by an emergency placement hearing a week later, two brief continuances by Mr. Kolstad, and then a single show cause hearing in December, consisting entirely of a stipulation. [00:23:02] Speaker 02: Unlike Gothheimer, this case culminated in a stipulation with no issues actually litigated. [00:23:08] Speaker 02: Unlike the litigant in Gotham, Mr. Kolstad didn't actively participate in litigation, and indeed, he sought to avoid litigation as his public defender suggested that he do. [00:23:24] Speaker 02: With regard to the Rule 41A2 issue, counsel mentioned a moment ago that there was no citation of that rule by the court or by the parties, but we've cited [00:23:40] Speaker 02: Procedure 41A2 holding that there doesn't have to be an explicit citation to that rule in order for that rule to apply. [00:23:48] Speaker 02: The question is, has the plaintiff requested dismissal of its own petition or complaint, and was that granted by the court? [00:23:59] Speaker 02: And that's exactly what happened here. [00:24:01] Speaker 02: They have no good answer as to why 41A2 doesn't apply. [00:24:05] Speaker 02: and because there was no mention of prejudice in the dismissal order, it's a dismissal without prejudice and therefore it has no finality for purposes of collateral estoppel. [00:24:21] Speaker 04: I think the difficulty with your argument, counsel, is that there was an adjudication in this case and specific factual findings based on the court's review of the evidence. [00:24:32] Speaker 04: I think if we're talking about [00:24:34] Speaker 04: A default judgment or a mere stipulation introduced into the record alone, that would be different. [00:24:40] Speaker 04: So you, you've got a tough record here. [00:24:44] Speaker 02: Well, Your Honor, we respectfully disagree. [00:24:47] Speaker 02: The record is the transcript, and the transcript shows that the prosecutor said up front, we would like to proceed by stipulation, and that was agreed to by Mr. Kohlstadt's public defender, and the state court agreed as well. [00:25:01] Speaker 02: There's simply no...the transcript [00:25:04] Speaker 02: Trump's the written order that the state court issued two weeks later. [00:25:09] Speaker 02: There was no evidence ever accepted by the state court or ever reviewed by the state court. [00:25:17] Speaker 02: Moreover, the defendants repeatedly referred [00:25:24] Speaker 02: the district court, the district court agreed they're judicially stopped from changing their story at this point. [00:25:33] Speaker 02: I noticed my time is rapidly running out. [00:25:38] Speaker 02: I'd like to conclude by stating that the state court proceedings here were decided not with evidence, testimony, or argument, but with a public defender telling a frightened father not to fight the system. [00:25:51] Speaker 02: No actual litigation occurred and no final judgment on the merits were ever issued. [00:25:56] Speaker 02: The district court's ruling was an error and it must be reversed. [00:26:01] Speaker 02: Unless the members of the panel have any further questions for me, I will submit it this time. [00:26:06] Speaker 03: Very well. [00:26:06] Speaker 03: Any other questions, my colleagues? [00:26:08] Speaker 02: Thank you. [00:26:09] Speaker 03: I think not. [00:26:09] Speaker 03: The case of Kolstad versus Baler Aragon is submitted. [00:26:14] Speaker 03: We thank counsel. [00:26:15] Speaker 03: The court stands adjourned for the day. [00:26:20] Speaker 04: Board is adjourned. [00:26:21] Speaker 04: Thank you.