[00:00:06] Speaker 05:
Mr. Smith, you may proceed.

[00:00:14] Speaker 02:
Good morning, Your Honors.

[00:00:17] Speaker 02:
Craig Smith, Council for SDVF, and I'm not going to go through the entire contents of my brief.

[00:00:25] Speaker 02:
I just wanted to highlight several points that I think draw attention.

[00:00:32] Speaker 02:
First of all, it's undisputed

[00:00:44] Speaker 02:
The COSIA did not dispute that evidence in the district court.

[00:00:50] Speaker 02:
They did not dispute that evidence in this court.

[00:00:52] Speaker 02:
They didn't even address it in their answering brief.

[00:01:20] Speaker 03:
didn't you have actual notice because a lot of the filings in the central district refer to the motion in Delaware.

[00:01:26] Speaker 03:
So if you just read those briefs, you would know this was happening in Delaware.

[00:01:33] Speaker 02:
Yes, I did know about the proceedings in Delaware, but I wasn't served with any papers.

[00:01:40] Speaker 02:
I didn't know of any dates.

[00:01:41] Speaker 02:
I wasn't served with process.

[00:01:44] Speaker 02:
I didn't have a chance to intervene.

[00:01:45] Speaker 03:
I had no other information about it.

[00:01:48] Speaker 03:
But if you knew about it, that this was

[00:01:57] Speaker 02:
I mean, there's one thing to know about the existence of something, but not have any pleadings, not have anything to address.

[00:02:06] Speaker 01:
I think the point that you might be trying to make is if you concede that you had actual notice, then why not file an opposition to the motion to vacate in the Delaware bankruptcy court?

[00:02:18] Speaker 01:
Why not take every measure available to you and your clients at that point?

[00:02:23] Speaker 01:
to raise the very objections that you're now seeking to raise as a collateral attack?

[00:02:28] Speaker 02:
Well, I'm not actually certain what day that I had actual notice, but I don't know how that I'm supposed to intervene in a case that I have no information about.

[00:02:38] Speaker 05:
And do you know what has happened?

[00:02:46] Speaker 05:
So when the default was set aside, that means the case can go forward.

[00:03:19] Speaker 02:
of all this so they were they were really you know their their the propriety of them even appearing was sort of questionable because they because the trustee had already been discharged but the the court had set dates for the proceeding to go forward and for Cozia to answer and appear in that case and they never did and so that

[00:03:55] Speaker 02:
order to meet and confer and file their appearance and proceed in that case to actually litigate the merits.

[00:04:01] Speaker 02:
And have you sought to intervene there?

[00:04:04] Speaker 02:
No, because the procedural posture of that is that the default was set aside and that became a final order before I had any knowledge of that.

[00:04:18] Speaker 02:
So once the default

[00:04:47] Speaker 03:
in the central district, but was there a reason why that notice wasn't filed in Delaware?

[00:04:52] Speaker 02:
Well, I know that from my perspective, I didn't file the document because my client was not a party to that case, so I wouldn't be just filing random documents.

[00:05:04] Speaker 03:
But if the interest has been assigned to your client, you can go and then say, look, MetaAdvisors really isn't the party in interest.

[00:05:13] Speaker 02:
It's my client.

[00:05:19] Speaker 02:
because in the opposition that was filed by meta-advisors to the motion, they informed the court that the judgment had been assigned to a third party.

[00:05:29] Speaker 02:
So everybody was on notice of the assignment and the bankruptcy court proceeded to set it aside anyway based on the false evidence that was presented by COSIA.

[00:05:39] Speaker 03:
I think the court doesn't know, maybe even arrange with meta-advisors,

[00:05:49] Speaker 03:
and transfer an interest and make an appearance.

[00:05:52] Speaker 02:
I suppose that men advisor should have done something more formal to advise the bankruptcy court but they did advise the bankruptcy court and the bankruptcy court was on notice and had actual knowledge that the judgment had been assigned.

[00:06:06] Speaker 02:
But I think that it gets more to the fundamental question here and that is that my client had a property interest in that

[00:06:31] Speaker 02:
to SDVF, I think improperly, I think that COSIA needs to answer for what they did in the Delaware Bankruptcy Court and that before my client's rights and the judgment can be taken away, this issue needs to be litigated because it wasn't brought to the attention of the Bankruptcy Court.

[00:07:23] Speaker 05:
or give effect to a judgment, you don't have a judgment, right?

[00:07:27] Speaker 05:
I mean, you think you should have a judgment.

[00:07:29] Speaker 05:
You think the judgment was taken away unfairly, but you do not have a judgment.

[00:07:32] Speaker 05:
So where does the, where does the central district get the authority to enforce a, you know, a truly judgment when there isn't an actual judgment?

[00:07:41] Speaker 02:
Yeah, well, I mean, there is an actual judgment.

[00:07:44] Speaker 02:
There was a judgment that was registered in the central district, and when it was registered, it was a valid,

[00:07:55] Speaker 02:
what happened later.

[00:07:56] Speaker 01:
It sounds to me that really what you're doing is you're hanging your hat on this this sole basis that you just described which is at one point there was a judgment that that was registered in the central district and there was a writ of execution issued and at that point you made a strategic decision not to do anything more because your your position was

[00:08:22] Speaker 01:
all we need and so you didn't oppose the motion to vacate in the Delaware bankruptcy court and you decided to move forward with this strategy but once that judgment was vacated now I think you have to answer the question that Judge Miller has has presented which is there's no judgment anymore and that strategy doesn't really play out because the statute requires a pre-existing judgment.

[00:08:58] Speaker 02:
process in the bankruptcy court and didn't have an opportunity to intervene.

[00:09:02] Speaker 02:
But you were aware that that motion had been filed?

[00:09:06] Speaker 02:
I was only aware just by virtue of the fact that they said that it had been filed.

[00:09:10] Speaker 02:
I didn't know when.

[00:09:11] Speaker 02:
I didn't know what it said.

[00:09:12] Speaker 02:
I didn't know what the basis was.

[00:09:14] Speaker 01:
I had no copy of the paperwork.

[00:09:19] Speaker 01:
How do we read the statute in any other way when the plain language requires a pre-existing judgment?

[00:09:26] Speaker 01:
What do we do if there's no judgment anymore?

[00:09:29] Speaker 02:
So here's the issue.

[00:09:31] Speaker 02:
With the registration, there's a judgment in the central district, and how do we know that?

[00:09:36] Speaker 02:
Because despite the fact that the judgment was set aside in the Delaware Bankruptcy Court, my client was proceeding to execute

[00:09:46] Speaker 02:
set aside the default judgment, it was not self-executing.

[00:09:50] Speaker 02:
So something needed to happen to take the order from the Delaware Bankruptcy Court and apply it to what was going on in the central district.

[00:10:01] Speaker 02:
If this supposition is true, then the Delaware Bankruptcy Court's order would be self-executing.

[00:10:18] Speaker 02:
took adjudication, it took a proceeding in the central district.

[00:10:22] Speaker 02:
And I know I'm running out of time, but I just want to point out that, you know, this is, you know, along the lines of those cases in the fidelity case.

[00:10:31] Speaker 02:
And if you look at that, those cases, they clearly established that a judgment, a valid judgment once registered has sort of a life of its own.

[00:10:44] Speaker 02:
And so even though the judgment in the

[00:11:11] Speaker 05:
Mr. Young.

[00:11:26] Speaker 04:
Good morning, Your Honors.

[00:11:27] Speaker 04:
May it please the Court?

[00:11:30] Speaker 04:
My name is Curtis Young, and I represent the Appellee COSIA, USA LLC.

[00:11:37] Speaker 04:
I'm going to shift gears here.

[00:11:42] Speaker 04:
outlined in the brief, but I'd like to right now address the court's questions that they asked in argument, because I think they're important for the court to understand.

[00:11:50] Speaker 04:
In terms of the question in response to Judge Lee's question as to the actual notice, and which was followed up by Judge Desai, is absolutely correct.

[00:12:16] Speaker 04:
which was improperly obtained in the Delaware court when we submitted our claim of exemption when our client was shocked in July of 2023 when their bank accounts were seized.

[00:12:29] Speaker 04:
So we set notice to SDF and our claim of exemption.

[00:12:34] Speaker 04:
Further, we followed that up when they filed a motion for determination of the claim of exemption.

[00:12:40] Speaker 04:
In our opposition papers, we also mentioned that we had filed the motion at that time.

[00:12:46] Speaker 04:
And so there's no doubt that SDF was clearly on notice as to this.

[00:12:52] Speaker 04:
Further, my friend here, he states that there is this alleged fraud presented by COSIA when we submitted our papers to set us

[00:13:06] Speaker 04:
the truth.

[00:13:07] Speaker 04:
If there's any fraud or misrepresentation that's being presented by the court, without due respect, it's been presented by an appellant or appellant's counsel.

[00:13:20] Speaker 04:
And because it is a blatant misrepresentation, when counsel here appears before the court and says, I never represented meta

[00:13:35] Speaker 04:
in the record in and of itself, and I will point specifically to this, in the entire California bankruptcy case that got dismissed, Mr. Smith was counsel of record that filed the original papers on behalf of Meadow.

[00:13:51] Speaker 04:
There is, there is an, which is in the record, in the supplemental excerpts of record, in volume two,

[00:14:04] Speaker 04:
to 249, Dorff found and said as of January of 2023, it is indicated here, which I'm holding right now, that Mr. Smith is the attorney for Metta Advisors LLC.

[00:14:16] Speaker 04:
And when he found his affidavit and request for issuance of a writ of execution, not once, but twice, in January of 2023 and in March of

[00:14:36] Speaker 04:
never represented meta.

[00:14:38] Speaker 04:
He double-downs on that

[00:14:41] Speaker 04:
in any of the proceedings whatsoever.

[00:14:44] Speaker 04:
Well, if you look at these documents, which are on the record, he clearly represents Metta.

[00:14:49] Speaker 04:
And so he had clear notice that Metta, what was transpiring, not only in this California courts, but also as well as in Delaware.

[00:15:03] Speaker 04:
And then further, to address also the questions, why didn't he file or intervene in that case?

[00:15:09] Speaker 04:
Exactly.

[00:15:21] Speaker 04:
If they'll be do so.

[00:15:25] Speaker 05:
in the Delaware Bankruptcy Court?

[00:15:28] Speaker 05:
That's a good question, Your Honor.

[00:15:29] Speaker 04:
Actually, there is nothing has transpired since in the order.

[00:15:38] Speaker 04:
In the order the judge asked that the parties meet and confer and get back to them.

[00:15:46] Speaker 04:
We've made efforts to do so with META, but nothing has happened on META's side, and it's really

[00:16:05] Speaker 04:
I I do not but if they wanted to I would imagine they would be able to

[00:16:16] Speaker 04:
a real party in interest that they would have filed if they were a real party in interest.

[00:16:21] Speaker 04:
They never even submitted an assignment agreement as to whether or not it was actually assigned to SDVF.

[00:16:28] Speaker 04:
But if they were a real party in interest, I would imagine that they would have taken the initiative to intervene.

[00:16:34] Speaker 04:
Or, yet alone, why didn't META even file an appeal to the Third Circuit?

[00:16:39] Speaker 04:
which they failed to do.

[00:16:41] Speaker 04:
Also, META, as well as SCF, not even having intervened, they didn't even file an appeal to the district court because there's no third, there's no appellate district in the Third Circuit.

[00:16:52] Speaker 04:
So they could have filed an appeal to the district court to appeal the ruling, which was properly issued by the Delaware bankruptcy court to set aside the default judgment, but they didn't do so.

[00:17:04] Speaker 01:
Is this court required to review the district courts

[00:17:16] Speaker 01:
the decision by the Delaware Bankruptcy Court?

[00:17:18] Speaker 04:
No, it is not, Your Honor.

[00:17:20] Speaker 04:
The laws and cases from this court alone has spoken on that issue that is absolutely disfavored.

[00:17:26] Speaker 04:
In the Delchin case, which this court ruled made findings on, as well as the Arunian case, which in those cases are pretty much consistent with the facts here, that it is disfavored and that such decisions should be left

[00:17:51] Speaker 04:
for the issues of, uh, consensuses for the co- because of the comedy clause for judicial administration, judicial infancy, um, the district court was spot on when it made those rulings and findings.

[00:18:03] Speaker 04:
And so, uh, so the district court was absolutely

[00:18:10] Speaker 04:
for us to go to that and to rule and make those findings.

[00:18:14] Speaker 04:
And we've set forth in our brief a litany and a variety of cases for the court that the standard review here is clearly an abuse of discretion.

[00:18:26] Speaker 04:
It is not for someone to go back and look at the entire record as to what transpired here.

[00:18:44] Speaker 04:
So if I could address the Judge's side as well as Judge Miller, your questions as to the final judgment, the issue of 1963, and that

[00:19:07] Speaker 04:
the plain language of the statute under 1963.

[00:19:10] Speaker 04:
It was also followed by Fidelity 2 by this court, as well as other cases.

[00:19:18] Speaker 04:
And when that judgment is vacated, the purpose, the rationality, intent, and the plain language of 1963 is absolutely clear.

[00:19:27] Speaker 05:
So do you think that's a limitation on the district court's jurisdiction?

[00:19:30] Speaker 05:
I mean, like, once the judgment is vacated, does the district court no longer have jurisdiction

[00:19:41] Speaker 05:
Or is it – I mean, I guess, should we – should we think of 1963 as creating – as creating jurisdiction on the part of the central district, or does jurisdiction come from something else, somewhere else, and 1963 is, you know, creating a cause of action?

[00:19:56] Speaker 05:
What's the right way to think of that?

[00:19:59] Speaker 04:
No, I think the issue of jurisdiction came about in the Fidelity II case, if that's what the court is – Well, the south personal jurisdiction, I think you're asking about South

[00:20:10] Speaker 04:
Okay, as to subject matter jurisdiction, it's our position that the district court will not have subject matter jurisdiction if that judgment is entirely set aside.

[00:20:25] Speaker 04:
There's nothing.

[00:20:27] Speaker 04:
Yeah, because there would be nothing before the Court of that type.

[00:20:30] Speaker 04:
So on those notes and grounds and arguments, we submit to the Court that the rulings by the District Court were absolutely correct and they should be affirmed.

[00:20:40] Speaker 04:
Thank you very much.

[00:20:58] Speaker 02:
of execution had to be in the name of Metta and it just started this cascade of errors.

[00:21:05] Speaker 02:
I never represented Metta.

[00:21:07] Speaker 02:
As soon as I realized that that's what was unfolding, I made clear in all of my pleadings that I represented SDVF as the S&E of Metta.

[00:21:16] Speaker 02:
I made a mistake in the filing.

[00:21:19] Speaker 02:
I tried to clarify that as soon as I could.

[00:21:22] Speaker 02:
So no, I never represented them.

[00:21:25] Speaker 02:
I never represented them in the bankruptcy court.

[00:21:27] Speaker 02:
I never

[00:21:31] Speaker 02:
So any of that reference was absolute error.

[00:21:37] Speaker 02:
And now with regard to the jurisdiction, of course, the central district has jurisdiction because otherwise how in the world could COSIA have filed this motion?

[00:22:23] Speaker 02:
court and seek relief in that court.

[00:22:25] Speaker 02:
My client cannot go to the Delaware Bankruptcy Court and seek relief because all of the time has expired.

[00:22:34] Speaker 02:
So when another remedy is not available

[00:22:45] Speaker 02:
into the order of another court, particularly when the order that they're considering was procured by fraud.

[00:22:53] Speaker 02:
Again, just disavowing the fact that there was fraud doesn't cut it because the issue that was presented to the Delaware Bankruptcy Court was whether the officer that was served with the process was actually an officer.

[00:23:23] Speaker 02:
So, so the district court has.