[00:00:00] Speaker 01:
Case number 19-7160, Aleksandr Kochinsky, appellant versus Republic of Poland, a foreign state.

[00:00:08] Speaker 01:
Mr. O'Donnell for the appellant, Ms.

[00:00:10] Speaker 01:
Moore for the appellee.

[00:00:13] Speaker 04:
Good morning, Mr. O'Donnell.

[00:00:16] Speaker 04:
Proceed whenever you're ready.

[00:00:17] Speaker 03:
Good morning, Your Honor, and may it please the court.

[00:00:21] Speaker 03:
I am Nicholas O'Donnell on behalf of appellant, Aleksandr Kochinsky.

[00:00:27] Speaker 03:
Sovereign immunity is an expression of what the courts have called comedy and respect among the nations.

[00:00:33] Speaker 03:
And the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, of course, codifies that framework.

[00:00:38] Speaker 03:
But underlying that policy and underlying the exceptions in the FSAA are those ideas of grace and respect.

[00:00:47] Speaker 03:
This case presents to the court a question of first impression in this circuit, namely, what happens when the foreign sovereign slouts that idea of respect?

[00:00:55] Speaker 03:
Because make no mistake, respectfully, the disrespect among nations at issue in this case is Poland's bad faith persecution of Alexander Kaczynski in the United States.

[00:01:08] Speaker 03:
What then do we make of the first two exceptions that we've invoked in this case, the implied waiver and the counterclaim exception?

[00:01:17] Speaker 03:
First, as the district court noted, we are dealing with facts that are not in dispute the in moving to dismiss Poland did not contest the underlying allegations which with which the court will be familiar but it's important to remember.

[00:01:31] Speaker 03:
Mr. Kaczynski did not go to Poland and commit some crime.

[00:01:35] Speaker 03:
Mr. Kaczynski raised the prospect of restitution of his family's Holocaust lost or looted property.

[00:01:43] Speaker 03:
And in Poland, that's not allowed.

[00:01:45] Speaker 03:
In Poland, asking about Jewish property restitution is antithetical to the policy of the government right now.

[00:01:55] Speaker 03:
And so what happens to him?

[00:01:57] Speaker 03:
Poland initiates an extradition request, which results in his arrest in New York City and his imprisonment and the attempt at his extradition, which Judge Rakoff in the Southern District thankfully rejected as without evidence.

[00:02:13] Speaker 03:
So that puts to the court the question of what are we to make of this?

[00:02:20] Speaker 03:
I think it's important to look right at Blacksland, the case from the Ninth Circuit on which Poland relies and on which the district court relied, because I think there's no getting around it.

[00:02:30] Speaker 03:
It presents this court with a fork in the road.

[00:02:33] Speaker 03:
As the district court noted, this court has been reluctant to find an implied waiver and all the good.

[00:02:41] Speaker 03:
But what do we do when a sovereign erects a purely pretextual and discriminatory prosecution against a person whom they seek to deport from the United States?

[00:02:52] Speaker 01:
Isn't extradition an executive process, a diplomatic process, right?

[00:02:56] Speaker 01:
It involves the Department of State, the Department of Justice.

[00:02:59] Speaker 01:
It doesn't involve the Republic of Poland going to court itself.

[00:03:04] Speaker 03:
Your honor, that's how it begins.

[00:03:05] Speaker 03:
That's how it begins.

[00:03:06] Speaker 03:
And I think it's a critical point because even in Blacksland, Blacksland suggested that unless the foreign sovereign is engaged in the US courts, that these exceptions don't apply.

[00:03:17] Speaker 03:
But the extradition doesn't, as we say, spring forth like Athena from the head of Zeus.

[00:03:22] Speaker 03:
The extradition happens because the foreign state goes to the State Department.

[00:03:26] Speaker 03:
And what should happen then, what should have happened here is someone in the State Department says, this is absurd.

[00:03:30] Speaker 03:
Of course not.

[00:03:31] Speaker 03:
But that didn't happen here.

[00:03:33] Speaker 03:
And unless the State Department and the Justice Department go to court, nothing happens because the State Department, you know, doesn't pick up people off the streets.

[00:03:42] Speaker 03:
They have to go through the judicial process and it only ends with the extradition of a person

[00:03:48] Speaker 01:
perspective of the Republic of Poland, that process is a process that's internal to the United States, right?

[00:03:55] Speaker 01:
To satisfy due process requirements and other requirements, right?

[00:03:59] Speaker 01:
Our State Department, Department of Justice seek a certificate of extraditability.

[00:04:04] Speaker 01:
That's a process that's internal to the United States, right?

[00:04:07] Speaker 01:
It's not something that the Republic of Poland invoked itself.

[00:04:12] Speaker 01:
They're just seeking extradition.

[00:04:13] Speaker 01:
They didn't go to court themselves.

[00:04:15] Speaker 03:
They did not go to court themselves, Your Honor, that is right, but it is the first link in a chain without which there can be no extradition.

[00:04:22] Speaker 03:
And I think the perspective that the district court took, the perspective that Blaxland takes, loses the forest for the trees.

[00:04:29] Speaker 03:
And in this case, not coincidentally, there is some back and forth.

[00:04:34] Speaker 03:
Judge Rakoff poses some questions to the Justice Department.

[00:04:37] Speaker 03:
The Justice Department gets the answers as a pure pass-through, as a pure pass-through.

[00:04:42] Speaker 03:
The Justice Department doesn't mediate anything the way Blacksland suggests.

[00:04:46] Speaker 03:
They pass the question to Poland.

[00:04:47] Speaker 03:
Poland provides the answer.

[00:04:50] Speaker 03:
That's participating.

[00:04:51] Speaker 03:
And again, I can't do this.

[00:04:54] Speaker 03:
A foreign corporation can't do this.

[00:04:56] Speaker 03:
The only ones who can do this is a foreign state.

[00:04:57] Speaker 03:
The only ones who can invoke the extradition treaty is the foreign state.

[00:05:00] Speaker 03:
But once they do, once they do,

[00:05:04] Speaker 03:
And again, on the facts here for purely illegitimate and discriminatory reasons, then there can be consequences.

[00:05:14] Speaker 03:
And as I thought about this argument, I thought, of course, this treatment of Mr. Kaczynski profoundly unfair, but take an even more extreme example.

[00:05:26] Speaker 03:
Imagine the United States has extradition treaties with almost every country in the world except Iran, Syria, North Korea, I think maybe Cuba, right?

[00:05:33] Speaker 03:
Imagine the Taliban reassume control of Afghanistan.

[00:05:38] Speaker 03:
And the Taliban institute prosecutions purely of facially recognizable crimes, but purely for religious discrimination against Jews, against Christians, whomever.

[00:05:50] Speaker 03:
And as here, nobody at the State Department stops this before it gets to court.

[00:05:58] Speaker 03:
That will be OK under the perspective that Blacksland and the district court

[00:06:04] Speaker 03:
compel.

[00:06:05] Speaker 04:
If we reach the conclusion you do, would that mean that any time the U.S.

[00:06:12] Speaker 04:
makes an extradition request abroad that it ought to be prepared to have been deemed to have waived a sovereign immunity and subject to suit?

[00:06:21] Speaker 03:
No.

[00:06:22] Speaker 03:
No, Your Honor, and I think that's an important point because, first of all, nearly every extradition request, it's important to remember, will result in extradition, right?

[00:06:32] Speaker 03:
The conclusion here in the district court is extraordinary in the usual sense of the word.

[00:06:37] Speaker 03:
The district court judge looked at this and said, no, this doesn't add up.

[00:06:41] Speaker 03:
Even then, even if the same standard were applied to the United States, even then if United States were faced with a claim like ours or as Poland was here, they can contest my allegation that there's nothing to this, my allegation that this was a pure invention.

[00:07:00] Speaker 03:
And at that point,

[00:07:01] Speaker 03:
then I have to prove what I'm saying at the threshold stage, right?

[00:07:07] Speaker 03:
So this is an enormous guardrail against that concern.

[00:07:11] Speaker 03:
And then, even then, of course, like I said, there has to be some, the discriminatory and arbitrary nature of it has to be plain on its face.

[00:07:24] Speaker 04:
But there would have been a waiver of sovereign immunity.

[00:07:26] Speaker 04:
It's true that the extradition can be stopped, as it was here.

[00:07:29] Speaker 04:
But by dint of asking for the extradition, it opens the door to waiving sovereign immunity for anything that arises out of the extradition, any claim that arises out of the extradition request.

[00:07:41] Speaker 03:
The request, Your Honor, what I'm saying is, the problem is, of course, I'm pointing the cart before the horse in some sense, but the claim has to exist.

[00:07:51] Speaker 03:
What is the claim?

[00:07:52] Speaker 03:
The claim here is that the prosecution abroad was for discriminatory reasons.

[00:07:57] Speaker 03:
So yes, what I'm saying is once Poland sets into motion that prosecution requesting the extradition waives its sovereign immunity, yes, but that's what happened in Siderman.

[00:08:07] Speaker 03:
And I think it's important to look at Siderman and Blacksland in connection.

[00:08:13] Speaker 03:
And I suggest respectfully to the Ninth Circuit that Blacksland and the district court in our case relied on a distinction that is really without a difference.

[00:08:23] Speaker 03:
that once the foreign state reaches into our judicial processes, and it may be by filing a paper, it may be by filing an appearance, it may be by sending a letter of rogatory, it may be by initiating an extradition process that it knows will lead to a certain conclusion that it's done so.

[00:08:43] Speaker 03:
And that's what the implied waiver is about, that's what the counterclaim exception is about.

[00:08:46] Speaker 03:
The counterclaim is about, the phrase is, brings or intervenes in an action.

[00:08:51] Speaker 03:
And as the Lorde case held, even that language, that plain language, we're just looking at the statute, not the legislative history, that applied to an interpletor action.

[00:09:02] Speaker 03:
The statute doesn't say interpletor, and you could take an extremely narrow view and say, well, if it doesn't, is an intervention in a rule 19 or filing of a complaint, initially it doesn't count as broad or intervenes, but Lorde expanded that perspective and we think appropriately so.

[00:09:19] Speaker 03:
With that, I'll reserve the balance of my time unless there are any other questions.

[00:09:24] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:09:24] Speaker 04:
We'll hear from Ms.

[00:09:25] Speaker 04:
Moore, and then we'll give you your rebuttal time.

[00:09:27] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:09:28] Speaker 04:
Ms.

[00:09:28] Speaker 04:
Moore.

[00:09:30] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:09:30] Speaker 02:
Your honors, and may it please the court, Desiree Moore on behalf of the Republic of Poland.

[00:09:35] Speaker 02:
The district court's order granting the Republic of Poland's motion to dismiss should be affirmed.

[00:09:40] Speaker 02:
The Republic of Poland is presumptively immune and is in fact immune from the jurisdiction of this court, and no exception applies in the present matter that would withdraw this immunity.

[00:09:49] Speaker 02:
More specifically, the entirety of Mr. Kuczynski's claims center on an extradition proceeding that occurred in 2015.

[00:09:56] Speaker 02:
The extradition, irrespective of how it is characterized or cast, does not give rise to any exception to the immunity that Poland is otherwise afforded, including under the implied waiver exception or the counterclaim exception that Mr. O'Donnell mentions today.

[00:10:12] Speaker 02:
I'd like to pick up where Mr. O'Donnell left off, if I could momentarily,

[00:10:18] Speaker 02:
Mr. O'Donnell encourages a dangerous precedent, and Chief Judge Srinivasan, to pick up on your question.

[00:10:26] Speaker 02:
The answer is yes, and Mr. O'Donnell concedes this.

[00:10:30] Speaker 02:
The United States would be subject to lawsuits around the world any time it initiated extradition pursuant to a treaty among nations.

[00:10:40] Speaker 02:
That is counter to the concepts of comedy and respect among nations that Mr. O'Donnell started off with.

[00:10:47] Speaker 02:
And in fact would create chaos and would discourage what the extradition treaties are intended to allow

[00:10:55] Speaker 02:
which is the disrespect and... Ms.

[00:10:59] Speaker 01:
Moore, what about the argument that by seeking extradition, the Republic of Poland knew that there would be a judicial process in order to complete its extradition, right?

[00:11:11] Speaker 01:
Although, of course, it went through diplomatic channels in order to actually extradite Mr. Kaczynski, there would have to be some judicial process.

[00:11:22] Speaker 01:
What about that argument?

[00:11:23] Speaker ?:
Sure.

[00:11:24] Speaker 01:
Sure.

[00:11:26] Speaker 02:
What Mr. Kaczynski is complaining about, in essence, is the process itself.

[00:11:30] Speaker 02:
So the extradition statute contemplates that once the State Department passes the preliminary evidence to a magistrate or other district court, there is a judicial component.

[00:11:42] Speaker 02:
And Poland, in accordance with the extradition process, provided evidence.

[00:11:47] Speaker 02:
Absent that evidence, you would never successfully extradite anyone.

[00:11:50] Speaker 02:
So it's not

[00:11:52] Speaker 02:
improper on its face to adhere to what the statute contemplates.

[00:11:57] Speaker 02:
And there is a judicial component.

[00:11:59] Speaker 02:
And Poland's knowledge of that judicial component does not bear on whether the extradition process is proper or whether, more importantly, the Republic of Poland is acquiesced in the jurisdiction of the United States.

[00:12:14] Speaker 01:
Why isn't there an implied waiver by invoking this process?

[00:12:19] Speaker 02:
So courts have universally found that the implied waiver exception is narrow.

[00:12:24] Speaker 02:
It is narrowly construed.

[00:12:25] Speaker 02:
And absent strong evidence that the foreign sovereign intended to waive immunity, courts will generally not find that there is a waiver.

[00:12:34] Speaker 02:
The legislative history talks about an agreement to arbitrate as a potential indication of waiver where the foreign sovereign has agreed to a particular choice of law or where the foreign sovereign has entered a responsive pleading without raising jurisdiction.

[00:12:49] Speaker 02:
And while the legislative history indicates that that might not be the entire universe.

[00:12:55] Speaker 02:
There's a commonality there the foreign sovereign has to demonstrate an intention to wave in order for that implied waiver exception to come into play.

[00:13:05] Speaker 02:
And here there was no such action taken by on the part of the Republic of Poland.

[00:13:11] Speaker 04:
An extradition, I just have a background question about how it actually works in practice.

[00:13:16] Speaker 04:
If a foreign country asks for extradition and then the executive, that goes to the executive here and then the executive makes an assessment of what to do.

[00:13:25] Speaker 04:
Does the executive typically exercise discretion in determining whether

[00:13:32] Speaker 04:
To pass on the extradition requests.

[00:13:34] Speaker 04:
In other words, it's engaging in its own inquiry and then it makes a determination of whether to to a seed to the foreign government's request for extradition.

[00:13:46] Speaker 02:
I believe that's I believe that's correct.

[00:13:49] Speaker 02:
The State Department makes a preliminary determination before then passing the inquiry to a magistrate or United States District Court judge for

[00:13:58] Speaker 02:
essentially an evidentiary analysis of the evidence that was put forward.

[00:14:03] Speaker 04:
So in terms of the nexus between the foreign country's request and the judicial proceeding that ultimately ensues, it's not that the foreign government is necessarily saying, I'm subjecting myself to a judicial proceeding.

[00:14:14] Speaker 04:
What it's saying is, I'd like your help.

[00:14:16] Speaker 04:
You put yourself in a judicial proceeding at my request.

[00:14:20] Speaker 04:
Definitely, I'm triggering it.

[00:14:22] Speaker 04:
But at my request, I'm asking you to subject yourself to a judicial proceeding that then will pass on the request that I've made to you.

[00:14:33] Speaker 02:
That's correct, Your Honor.

[00:14:34] Speaker 02:
And on the face of the caption, in this particular extradition hearing, the 2015 extradition that Mr. Kuczynski's entire complaint is based upon, the caption itself is the United States versus Mr. Kuczynski.

[00:14:46] Speaker 02:
And an AUSA shepherds that proceeding.

[00:14:50] Speaker 02:
That's correct, Your Honor.

[00:14:52] Speaker 00:
I think there are certain things that have to be examined by the executive, such as whether the dual criminality standard has been met and whether there's an adequate foundation in the evidence.

[00:15:08] Speaker 02:
Correct, Your Honor.

[00:15:10] Speaker 02:
And I think that that's further to the point.

[00:15:12] Speaker 02:
There is some level of executive discretion or executive analysis

[00:15:17] Speaker 02:
before it is transitioned to a judicial process.

[00:15:21] Speaker 00:
I also find that there are also instances in which the executive has to, when we're requesting, when the United States is requesting extradition, sometimes the foreign state will, depending on their laws, condition extradition on an assurance that there'll be no capital punishment or charge.

[00:15:45] Speaker 00:
It's a negotiation.

[00:15:46] Speaker 00:
In that respect, it's a negotiation between nations.

[00:15:51] Speaker 02:
That's correct, Your Honor, and is exemplified by the fact that it originates and remains in the executive.

[00:15:57] Speaker 02:
It is a function of the executive branch.

[00:16:02] Speaker 01:
I just had a question about willfulness with respect to the default here.

[00:16:11] Speaker 01:
I mean, some of the claims of Mr. Kaczynski really are about what the government of Poland is doing here, right?

[00:16:20] Speaker 01:
And so I guess I'm wondering if you can maybe share with us

[00:16:25] Speaker 01:
you know, why the Republic of Poland is pursuing Kaczynski for a painting of relatively limited value and whether that pursuit does suggest bad faith or willfulness with regard to the default.

[00:16:41] Speaker 02:
So as it concerns the default under Rule 55 for good cause shown, the district court will reverse the default or vacate the order of default or the entry of default rather.

[00:16:55] Speaker 02:
And the willfulness component goes to whether the Republic of Poland willfully did not appear or whether there was some underlying event that can be pointed to that would suggest otherwise.

[00:17:08] Speaker 02:
Here, there was confusion as it concerned service.

[00:17:11] Speaker 02:
And I struggle to understand how the extradition or any of the kind of events that occurred in the aftermath

[00:17:20] Speaker 02:
bear on this.

[00:17:22] Speaker 02:
Mr. Kuczynski failed to effect service.

[00:17:25] Speaker 02:
Mr. Kuczynski emailed the Portuguese central authority instead of the Polish central authority at the outset.

[00:17:33] Speaker 02:
There were a number of confusing events that occurred and once Mr. Kuczynski did in fact proceed according to the correct process, certificate of service was or service rather was accomplished thereafter relatively quickly.

[00:17:46] Speaker 02:
So there is no willfulness that Mr. Kuczynski points to, and certainly the court did not abuse its discretion in finding that there was no willfulness, or rather that there was good cause shown to vacate the entry of default.

[00:18:01] Speaker 00:
Ms.

[00:18:01] Speaker 00:
Morey, if we disagreed with you on that and remanded the matter, well, I think that would result in remanding the matter, what would happen then?

[00:18:13] Speaker 02:
In a sense, we would be back where we started because without jurisdiction, the court cannot hear this case.

[00:18:18] Speaker 02:
And so that goes to the element of plaintiff's prejudice, even whether the case is remanded and whether we sort of start over because of that lack of, or because of a willfulness determination, let's say.

[00:18:33] Speaker 02:
In any event, we are right where we started.

[00:18:34] Speaker 02:
Absent jurisdiction, a court cannot hear this case here.

[00:18:38] Speaker 00:
Is the plaintiff alleged any prejudice?

[00:18:44] Speaker 02:
The plaintiff did not allege any prejudice as contemplated under Rule 55.

[00:18:49] Speaker 02:
And where the court lacks jurisdiction, the plaintiff cannot be prejudiced in any event.

[00:18:54] Speaker 02:
And so to your question, that there really is no prejudice here.

[00:19:00] Speaker 02:
Absent jurisdiction, the court cannot hear this case.

[00:19:03] Speaker 04:
I have one question on it.

[00:19:04] Speaker 02:
And the district court correctly found.

[00:19:05] Speaker 04:
I have just one question on an exception that we haven't talked about yet, which is the non-promotional tort exception.

[00:19:10] Speaker 04:
So just out of curiosity, I know that they

[00:19:14] Speaker 04:
The action in the district court and in the briefing here has been on 1605A5B and whether the claim involves abuse of process.

[00:19:23] Speaker 04:
I'm just wondering whether there was any consideration given in the district court before the district court about the applicability of the discretionary function prong, which is 1605A5A as opposed to 1605A5B.

[00:19:38] Speaker 04:
Did that ever come up?

[00:19:40] Speaker 04:
And if not, why not?

[00:19:41] Speaker 04:
Maybe there's an obvious answer.

[00:19:44] Speaker 02:
Your honor, that did not come up.

[00:19:45] Speaker 02:
And the answer there may well be, and we would submit that 1605A, 5B is a more pertinent exemption or exception to the exception, particularly where Mr. Kuczynski has pointed to abusive process as count five of his complaints and the additional causes of action that he suggests are covered by

[00:20:12] Speaker 02:
The non commercial toward exception First Amendment retaliation and torches interference arise out of abusive process and are also barred But is it that may well be right.

[00:20:22] Speaker 04:
I'm not suggesting that it's not right.

[00:20:24] Speaker 04:
I'm not suggesting one way or the other.

[00:20:27] Speaker 04:
But is there an obvious reason that it's the initiation of the the initiation of the extradition request was not a discretionary function.

[00:20:38] Speaker 02:
I'm not sure you're on.

[00:20:39] Speaker 02:
I'm not sure I understand the question in terms of whether there's an obvious reason.

[00:20:42] Speaker 02:
I think here.

[00:20:44] Speaker 02:
I'm not sure why the district court didn't go there and we didn't raise it in our briefing because a five be felt like the more obvious and pertinent exception.

[00:20:54] Speaker 02:
Apologies if I'm misunderstanding the question.

[00:20:56] Speaker 04:
No, no, I was just wondering if there's, it's either of them would work for your purposes, A5A or A5B.

[00:21:02] Speaker 04:
And I was just wondering whether there was an obvious reason why A5A was not a home where your argument could have been made.

[00:21:10] Speaker 04:
But it's not something central to the case, I understand, because it hasn't been litigated under that prong of the statute.

[00:21:18] Speaker 02:
OK.

[00:21:21] Speaker 04:
Unless my colleagues have further questions, I think we'll give Mr. O'Donnell his rebuttal time.

[00:21:29] Speaker 03:
Thank you, your honor.

[00:21:30] Speaker 04:
Thank you, Mr. O'Donnell, please.

[00:21:32] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:21:33] Speaker 03:
To cover a few things that came up in responsive argument, Poland I think now has conceded that there is judicial process.

[00:21:40] Speaker 03:
A lot of their argument rests on the idea that there was none.

[00:21:43] Speaker 03:
And that's really all we're talking about on the threshold matter, certainly of

[00:21:47] Speaker 03:
of the counterclaim exception with regard to Poland's response to the complaint service in October of 2018 was proper Poland conceded this the sole email by my service provider as a follow up to a Portuguese diplomat.

[00:22:01] Speaker 03:
delayed the matter by two weeks before he corrected the address and followed up.

[00:22:05] Speaker 03:
As to the willfulness, there can really be no doubt and again on the allegations of the complaint, what they then did was arrest my client in France.

[00:22:13] Speaker 03:
And that leads to my final point, which is just the relevance of the European judicial decisions is Poland has been cast out of the European community as a country that respects the rule of law.

[00:22:23] Speaker 03:
And they are using this process there.

[00:22:25] Speaker 03:
Other courts have recognized it.

[00:22:27] Speaker 03:
We respectfully ask this court to take note of those decisions as well.

[00:22:30] Speaker 00:
Mr. O'Donnell,

[00:22:32] Speaker 00:
if we disagreed with the district court as to the vacating the default judgment, what good does that do you?

[00:22:41] Speaker 03:
The default, Your Honor, we would, there are two questions, of course.

[00:22:47] Speaker 03:
The question is, should default judgment had entered?

[00:22:49] Speaker 03:
We moved for it.

[00:22:50] Speaker 03:
The court turned us down.

[00:22:52] Speaker 03:
So the court could overturn the district court's vacating the default and remand with instructions, different instructions about entering default judgment, or the court could affirm the denial of default judgment

[00:23:02] Speaker 03:
and remand the case to begin and compel a responsive pleading from Poland at the very least.

[00:23:12] Speaker 00:
Isn't that a bootless matter if you don't have a claim of prejudice?

[00:23:18] Speaker 03:
If we don't have a claim of prejudice, your honor, that is a component of it.

[00:23:20] Speaker 03:
Yes.

[00:23:21] Speaker 03:
And I submit part of the prejudice is we were entitled to the judgment and in a collateral action is what happened in France.

[00:23:29] Speaker 03:
And rather than

[00:23:30] Speaker 03:
Focus on this case.

[00:23:32] Speaker 00:
What's the claim?

[00:23:33] Speaker 00:
Ordinarily, a claim of prejudice in a context like this means that something changed during the period that the judgment was enforced, or in this case, the default.

[00:23:45] Speaker 00:
And some development, some problem with evidence or witnesses, nothing like that?

[00:23:51] Speaker 03:
No, that's right.

[00:23:53] Speaker 03:
All right.

[00:23:53] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:23:54] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:23:55] Speaker 04:
Thank you, counsel.

[00:23:56] Speaker 04:
Thank you to both counsel.

[00:23:57] Speaker 04:
We'll take the case under submission.