hempstead the landowner here has been going through a process with the town of mammoth catering for several years going back and forth she's been approved several times to do the project that she wants to do and now at this point still has several avenues at least two avenues of relief from the town of member kidding that she can pursue one that's that's planning board and see if she could complete her project without the need for those variances which originally she had planned approval to do she could put in her pool put in her barn without doing the expanded extraction and mining work that extraction of mining meaning that there are sand hills on the property removal of sand and earth material is what we're talking about for sure either for sale or for use elsewhere there's a there's a there's a big problem in new york state generally of landowners taking down hills and flattening earth and the both the state and the town have regulations to prevent that or to allow it in only limited circumstances sure so from the beginning of this case and i think the documents the extensive record submitted with the complaint really bears this out the talent has been approving mrs thomas projects and every time she's been going beyond those approvals to take down and take out more materials than is necessary and this isn't just a town official saying this the engineers that the town hires to do these  analyze these issues have been saying the same thing so it's kind of a short short story of it i think that it's pretty clear under duress under williamson rightness that the that the claims just aren't right for consideration what maybe is a little bit less clear and it's something that standing here now i think i wish we'd devoted a little bit more time to  briefs is the article seventy eight issue because she did bring article seventy eight claims in with her federal claims into federal court the landowner never brought an article seventy eight dollars claim in state court as we would argue would have been appropriate which she did instead was brought several federal claims subsets of due process se due process brought those into federal court with her article seventy eight proceeding nine separate article seventy eight claims eight hundred and fifty paragraphs of a complaint i should have brought it single sided for effect but   but it's not appropriate under rule eight in federal court and why do i even bring that up is because we argued in the district court on the district court level that the district courts the federal courts lack jurisdiction in the st place or should not be exercising jurisdiction in the st place over article seventy eight proceedings and there is a good wealth of district court decisions on that point but this court has never spoken on it the you don't need to touch that issue but you might be implicitly saying that there would be subject matter jurisdiction if the article seventy eight dollars claim were right so the the worry then is that if this court issues a decision and says it's not ripe then maybe at some point mrs thomas gets to come back to district court again and say well look here is my article seventy eight claim now it is right because i took these other steps and really article seventy eight dollars isn't just a claim it's a set of procedures under state law  that allow for expedited briefing expedited summary decision without the need for discovery that favors both the applicant and it favors the municipality because we can get these things decided  much more quickly if you bring those claims into federal court which we see quite a bit what happens is those procedures are stripped away and so they're stripped from both the plaintiff and from the defendant who no longer has the benefit the municipality no longer has the benefit of that expedited procedure  the other reasons why the federal court might not want to exercise or should not exercise jurisdiction in the st instance over an article seventy eight are the same reasons that underlie rightness analysis these  hyper local issues best suited for v most local courts and we know that because article seventy eight dollars says that the claim shall be brought in the claim shall be brought in the district in the county where the determinism determination is made which means you have a right under article seventy eight dollars to have your claim decided on judges who for better or worse our  in the county where you're bringing your claim that's another thing that is stripped away another right to strip away when the federal courts take up the claim and these are hyper local claims  and then get kind of worked out in the wash whether through summary judgment or eventually through trial most decisions we see our district courts declining to exercisers action but again this court case really highlights because of the breadth of the complaint and the filing and the way that it goes in through the minute of the process the back and forth going with the municipality e mails to the town attorneys it really highlights why the federal court generally prefers to stay out of these kind of small hyper local issues and why it might be appropriate for the court to rule in this instance that it's unwise to exercise jurisdiction  well i think that the court could make a person a rule that in article seventy eight dollars matters because of the special nature of an article seventy eight dollars proceeding that it would be an abuse of discretion generally  not now to ruin it maybe hoover they are benchmark discussion and i suspect there's a land use section or whatever that might want to take on as a project but that may be a more fruitful way of getting the issue addressed than us sort of issuing an advisory opinion sounds like a federal bar council that you may want to gets lined up some of us may attend anyway thank you very much