yes or even at this moment there we have no claim to get it so you're you're saying that you're dismissing certain claims and that binding upon your client that's correct and tell us again against the there's a litany of names here so i'm trying to do in your sense but it would be anything anybody related to the juvenile justice department in any individual or official capacity well a argument why don't you follow up file with our courts office that i'm for an order where you dismiss your appeal against a that's the civic person so with you know exactly who's left in this case they go and so you're saying who's individually officially mr kenneth wright individually and officially also at the hunt county juvenile detention center showing you a williams individual e n officially in her hunt county in her capacity working for the county juvenile detention answer my question who is left in this case just give me a category like young man was injured at the one county detention center everybody be part of the county tensions so you dismissing texas juvenile justice we are going i can apologize for that but i think it's wiser for me to dismiss them now than continue the effort to reach came here to talk about the facts came here to talk about the law but i really think it's the most interesting implication for me is the effect of the judge of the decision by the magistrate and the decision that ratified that was ratified by the district judge on the issue of lawyer let's think about this for a minute the young man was injured at the detention center his parents filed a lawsuit on february twenty ninth two thousand and nine if we let the dish or court's decision stand what that means is they should have filed another lawsuit if at all by february twenty ninth two thousand and eleven one that was kind of a possibility because the and i'm watching the clock i'm watching the clock and i'm saying i've got two years to make another lawsuit happen do we really want that i don't think so i really don't think that's the best way for us to huge additional autonomy i don't really think that's the best way to even get to finality which is one of the i think underlying principles in the in the magistrate's decision in the district court's decision and we all appreciate the need for finale but what this does that actually do the exact opposite your honor it opens up the door for further litigation personally i think there's a lot of other ways that a case like this could be addressed if it's sent back to the to the different corps given the opportunity to amend the pleadings which by the way i think the way we the way i understand the written documents so i did go back and read the source document that was done by the underlying attorney a different court by my understanding of of the reading of that he did that he did specifically ask you know let's take of given the opportunity and if it's in there it's in there if it's not it's not but it's my understanding that he definitely did ask two men for men to complain ok so we have an interesting rule that was decisions but we're not here attacking the finality of the previous decision which a judge may be rule and i think that judge made rule had other problems i'm going to talk about here in a second as the judge wrote that the miners claims were not told until the miner reaches majority because the incapacity of them in the minority was remedied by the next frank proceeding and once again the magistrate the district judge who relied upon the legal question is do the parents and actually the chance now that he's age of majority have the right to file new claims that his parents did not want to be elected to file well i did something kind of old fashioned i looked in a book i looked in the all blacks or the vernons that we have and you know they have digests and them where they list all the cases and i found a case of fact i found a number of cases i'm going to read this one it is from  next friend happen to be his father did not create would deny to stop the child from final fight filing his own suit when he became an adult there are other cases also early on in our history that issues that needed to be addressed one of the things that happened in this case as we've had what the field it was that there were some conditions and concerns about fraud there were some concerns about misrepresentation by arguably if we uphold that rule they should have filed something else by february twenty ninth two thousand and eleven well what's the accrual period i mean we just created another unworkable rule that you go back to the moment when the parents filed over those two years does it go back all the way to when the kid was a minor including every single thing that happened to the kid anywhere at the detention center that was missed the first time so that's another problem with what i call the lawyer in part or the implication of of this decision another important public policy consideration this is the fifth circuit case doran versus content six forty five f second four forty fifth circuit nine hundred eighty one in those there for going to talk about a limitation period is presumed to be prospective and only if the legislature has a specific legislative intent in a limitation law can it be retroactive well here we are certainly no legislative intent i mean we could scour any of the aspects of the civil practic remedy called dealing with a tolling of limitations and there's a list of on going through the whole chapter sixteen none of them have any legislative intent that address the issue of this rule so even if the court would apply this rule and we don't think it should but even if even if you do we don't think it should apply to chance for chance place for the various reasons in fact arguably that also violates the texas constitution which states that no retroactive law may be made once again we have asked that the court remain in this case back give us the opportunity to amend the pleadings take into consideration the various potential tolling issues for instance the case was filed once again in february by the time the fifth circuit addressed the first case that came through here the young man was over eighteen is a statute of limitations told during that period is an equitable tolling issue that we need to address  what's the cruel date i think which again this particular rule creates more problems than it really benefits us i understand i respect the need for finale and appreciate and i mean it like it but i understand it and i think this rule actually creates problems and actually opens up the door for plaintiff lawyers or other litigants to file multiple pleadings within a significant period of time i think the current law as it stands regarding regarding limitations or current law federal law claim although we do under nine hundred eighty three we look to state law on certain things such as statute of limitations such when i have a real concern about the lack of phonology and a federal court decision that is appealed to our court and affirmed and yet here we are again and and that's that's maal overarching concern well two points one that there are significant case law that i've cited and and i mention today and some of its owner brief that speaks to the ability for minors to reopen cases where previous judgments may be infirm so notwithstanding the concept of anality finale doesn't always mean finale  that and i do but i think this rule will create more problems than that it will benefit us but he said this her rule that the magistrate made that said that if a parent or next friend files a case for a child  basically what it says is that if they don't file something else within two years they can't do it so i think this is just for me comes back to the issue i have a case i represent a kid there's something going on in the case i don't like or there are some new things that come along all of a sudden i'm going to file something again within two years i'm watching the clock and i think that you want the public policy if you who's going to come out of a decision like that and i think that's more dangerous than letting this go back and litigate the issues maybe go who's left not least on this announcement that certain parties around which which lawyers olympics the two that are supposed to argue here today i guess that's just me your honor i'm eric mcgee and i represent the may please the court my name is eric mcgee and i represent the hunt county defendants in this case that would be frederick farley who is not an investigator as referenced here today he's was the assistant director at the time of the hunt juvenile detention center chemist wright who was a juvenile detention officer and should need to williams who was also a detention officer so only three apple leaves are left that's my understanding from what he said what he told us right guess i'm somewhat confused today bought this announcement because part of his claims are dealt with a class action lawsuit that included a very lengthy fact pattern scenario about the investigations that were conducted at the county juvenile detention center and that process that it went through and he lists thirty seven cases of alleged sexual assaults or thirty seven prior complaints of abuse reports that were submitted to t j j d as no evidence and does not meet the definition of what complaints actually are and he goes through a very link the detail of eight sexual abuse cases filed sexual abuse cases with no contact twenty one physical abuse cases bob releasing or dismissing them out of the claim then the class action matter is gone and i believe judge barksdale you asked if that was binding on his client well that's the very dish will autonomy and efficiency that we're here for today and that is when you bring a lawsuit as next a friend as allowed by the federal rule of civil procedure seventeen  you're bringing those claims on behalf of the person who doesn't have the capacity to sit in this case that was chance kleist at the time he was the minor child of donna and marc klaas all those claims from a federal law claim so once we take out the class action issues of the investigations then we get back to the very operative facts that we were here for in two thousand and nine and i don't think that it creates more lawsuits as  mr circle just argue it creates less lawsuits that's the purpose of judicial economy and efficiency and that's to have all the claims brought forward back in two thousand and nine family and chants kleist as next a friend had for lawyers they were represented by four separate law firms when this lawsuit initially was brought forward we went through extensive discovery throughout that process to evaluate every single federal plane that could be brought and they even included texas tort law claims at that time that was brought against the hunt calving the hunt county juvenile detention board alan brown who was the chief who fred farley reported to tina jobi who was a corrections officer just like the other two in anthony's seriously who were was also a detention officer and at that time mrs williams was actually named as a defendant in the lawsuit along with miss davis and they also put placeholders in those john doe's we had a lot of discovery in this case and depositions and we went through the motions for s phase first for mr brown mr joe b and mr c or c and they were granted on qualified immunity then we went through additional discovery and depositions and follow the summary judgment motion on behalf of hot counting in the hunt county juvenile detention board that was also grandmother in our favor and then the kleist family including this next a friend for chance following appeal we came here for oral argument the chance family or chance again went ahead and follow a register she already to the us supreme court that was denied and then now we're back in an attempt to revive claims that we've limitation that barred this case from being set and that barring of the case is the previous case he was fully adjudicated in that process it's the exact same operative facts whether the fact he was a you look at texas law for those and the civil practice enormities code states that you have two years after you reach the rule of majority as well as texas where the civil procedure says that a lawsuit can be brought as next a friend just like the federal lawsuit i mean just like the federal rule of civil procedure seventeen c and it's going to bring those when you look at the relevant texas case law that goes into effect as what's buying what what process is binding and the court appointed to remember is as binding where there was a matter where the juvenile or a minor was represented by his father and as an ex or friend  matter party they wanted to intervene it was against michigan and there was another defendant that was trying to be added during the deposition testimony there was testimony from the mother and the father about that individual and that they really wasn't any negligent acts against that individual and the court went back and determined that that person should not have been joined into the lawsuit and that the testimony of the father and the mother as a next to friend was binding on that person i mean in this case that would create this absurd argument that now he gets to revive something two years past him filing a federal lawsuit or his family is next to a friend on his behalf fully evaluating all the federal claims here and prosecuting those claims there's no new operative facts there's no new fact pattern or anything else we're still talking about the exact same time frying a february two thousand and eight through march of two thousand and eight when chance  our detention center the same fact pattern that he's brought forward today about little blue pills and operating toilets all of these things are the exact same claims that were brought up prior so if he's buying this client today to dismiss claims against the juvenile justice department the texas juvenile justice department and all the employees there why weren't his lawyers back in two thousand and nine when they were prosecuting his federal law claims binding him as next to a friend as his mother was when they determined what specific types of claims would go forward it was your best texas law from the texas code as to how well the limitations period was untold and other words tell how he only had two years once his actions fall to the second action because understand that there's just not there's nothing in the code that would support the ruling by the district judge i could not find a specific case that said that but i couldn't talking about the code itself that at sixteen zero zero one yes there's enough there's no case that says that it's balam forever either otherwise he would come i mean it 's just a policy decision a logical situation and the court system would be flooded now if that every time somebody brought a case on behalf of someone that didn't have the capacity to see either due to illness or because they were a minor or something else once that was remedied and that person was able to sue then it would seem like every time someone would be sued because of the same fact would apply to us are the classes in chance are unhappy with the decision of the district court dismissing the two thousand and nine lawsuit and the fifth circuit affirming that and the supreme court not moving forward with that i've run out of time if i can finish my thought settlement with them we wouldn't be able to then undo a settlement or a judgment had we appealed it up to the fifth circuit and said oh he hasn't reached maturity yet this doesn't apply to him because it only applies once he is two years past actions of limitations i mean that that would create just this flood of litigation over and over throughout the process that in every case whenever there is a next a friend suit that then there those opinions are not binding those opinions are just left until whatever the process is that would remedy it i mean the whole point of there being a point where you reach majority and then still having that ability to sue there's a long list of texas cases out there that actually discussed that that actually discussed examples of where maybe up next a friend brought a lawsuit and failed to do adequate discovery or the case was dismissed for want of prosecution and they said that's not binding on the min whether they just named someone in the lawsuit and the child or the person that is next to a friend does not prosecute those claims that's not bad enough in this particular case we have an issue where he participated in the entire lawsuit his family was next to a friend all the various elements and causes of action and facts in the case were evaluated and determine what what cases should there's no situation of fraud here there's not been an argument that donna kleis his mother or marc klaas's father lacked the authority to speak for chance kleis they did not raise any issues that the facility he's the one that was in the detention facility and has had subsequent surgeries from that they've not addressed any issues that there's no conflict of interest between mr weiss and his parents and they've not any arguments that the representation by counsel now i believe this is six or seven various attorneys that have been in this case was an adequate nor have they even raised any issues that during the process of the first lawsuit that it wasn't aggressively prosecuted i believe you ask a question about if the records said anything about them asking to file or a d their pleading i went back and looked last night kind of a very similar question to that i couldn't find a motion where mr nixon who was the previous counsel to mr circle follow an actual motion for leave to amend the pleadings or anything like that i think it was referenced in passing and in response to our motion to dismiss but there was an actual request of the court a separate motion seeking leave of court i mean if you even look back at the docket sheet wh  miss clients who actually filed the or chance to actually file this pro se and misapplies amended this last two times before an attorney was even involved so clearly that's a process that they were aware of and they made corrections to that process throughout this case to case three cases i've heard today i don't think were mentioned in the any of the briefing in this case that was a galveston county case back in one thousand no one that talked about disability that wasn't mentioned here and hartman i think versus hartman which was an eight hundred ninety five case that talked about equitable issues and fraud he attempted to tie the fraud to misrepresentations in reporting the first case in two thousand and nine those issues were fully addressed throughout that process as well i mean to say that this is some new cause of action would mean that we have to come out of some new operative facts or or something and i know it all kind of ties them together with that race judicata issue but you have to determine what bard what statute of limitations barred you from bringing in additional so you and i and i believe you just go through the i'm alan g of the statute you look first at the interest of the court and that is to protect a minor child that's what texas of a practice and remedies code sixteen point zero one does by allowing that two year period to be extended after the age of majority then you actually go to federal rule of civil procedure seventeen c two that gives the authority for someone to see you as a next a friend you also can look at texas rule of civil procedure forty four of them that discusses this very same thing it's federal world approval procedure seventeen which says such an ex a friend shall have all their rights concerning such things and shall give the security of costume affidavits and leave their of when required such next a friend or his attorney of record may with the approval of the court compromise s and agree to judgments and such judgments agreements and compromises when approved by the court shall be forever binding and conclusive upon the party plaintiffs in such a state that's the same analogy we're working with here he a lawsuit was brought as a next to a friend that case was aggressively litigated to its fullest extent on the very same issues they're now trying to revive it and they were just  happy with the previous decision and trying to bring back to the exact same you're talking again you're talking preclusion and we're here on limited and i understand you've told us that there's nothing in texas hello that addresses this point exactly it's just a question of policy and that may well be true but what you're talking about now is in effect race judicata and i think the two cases you ask for some cases there's not a case directly on point but i think when you do look at the matter of the a s which was referenced not only by the magistrate's report recommendation and adopted by the judge the matter of d a s which was not fifty one southwest second five twenty eight i hundred seventy cases dealt with the juvenile delinquency issue that civil issue that squads are criminal and that goes through this very same analogy of how you would of what the duties and responsibilities are for a lawyer in that case when they made a determination to dismiss an appeal and then there's the ramirez case that i mentioned earlier versus micheline and that was two thousand and seven west law two one two six six three five and specifically at page four it was the southern district of texas case july nineteenth two thousand and seven which basically said that those litigation decisions made by the next of friend bam them the minor and that that's just the same analogy that i think you would follow here by looking at the various things so based on that we believe that the judge fish the district court judge properly granted our motion to dismiss and this case has been barred by statute of limitations from the two thousand and nine litigation otherwise there would be an absurd decision  there would be a flood of litigation for anyone who wants to now come forward as they were unhappy with their previous lawsuits when they were brought in adjudicated and prosecuted to their fullest extent by their necks to friends the court affirm the district court of the report of record page forty eight that's not a pleading no it's not but i would say for a practice perspective i have never done that i mean i've had i don't know dozens and dozens and dozens of cases before the federal district courts and if there is a problem with or you know complaint or amended complaint we always put it in both at the beginning and at the end saying of the court's much to dismiss our case we appreciate the opportunity to replete i have never ever filed a that's the only thing i can think of that there's nothing written in the decision by the district judge that addresses this issue but but you the question you asked me was it asks for it and the answer is yes no the question i asked you was was anything filed meaning the court paper requesting leave to a man no it was not but if you're asking me if there was a specific pleading related to that the answer is no but if you're asking me what is asked for in a pleading the answer is yes absolutely we understand that case law is extensive going back many many years that if there is a judgment that binds a minor and there's something about that judgment that's on it can be reviewed and arguably set aside once again the issue before the court is one of limitations and as i said at the beginning and i kind of underscore again now i think that i used the word rule your honor so forgive me but but the standard or laws of now being contemplated is actually worse than letting things run the way they should be we go back to court we amend the complaint we get rid of all the old defendants that don't need to be in the case we simplify the issues we make sure that none of the claims that were previously adjudicator are not brought up again and then counsel has an opportunity to address all the other pleading issues and defenses affirmative defenses that particular defendant may have but i just think once again this particular issue about the statute of limitation issues new issues once again is that we have we have argued but let me say something the original complaint was written pro se it was never given the opportunity be amended by an attorney who knows what they're doing so based upon the current pleadings there's implications in there of of eighth amendment claims there's actually specific claims in there regarding disability discrimination neither