that for multiple days was housed at the clackamas county jail and during his time there he was deprived of the full services and benefits of the clackamas county jail including medical treatment so i understand it you originally filed the suit against the county and crisis correct correct settled the case against the county correct so now you simply have claims against with respect to your federal claims what i find troublesome is that both statutes seem to limit those claims to public entities why why is corrosion a public  harm only a public entity can violate and that's subject in a qualified individual with a disability to discrimination by a public entity but the other portion of the statute congress did not limit that harm to public entities that just says that you can exclude participation in or denying the benefits of the services programs or activities of a public entity now most of the times only a public entity would have the power to exclude someone from their services but in a very limited situation such as this where careers and steps into the shoes of the public entity which it is admitted that that is what it did they are  why the entity would be liable for their actions and circumstances and indeed it appears that you've got a settlement out of the energy because of that but where is there which is a statute suggest that if if the of it did open its denial of access user saying denial of access to accommodations in a public entity and so my question is once if they're acting as the agent of the public entity in denying you the access are they libel say your would have only been released in the claims against clackamas county i don't think you can carve out an exception to anything in a settlement can you can you can you can you release a principle and not discharge the agent at the same time as a matter of law me i mean i don't i don't have a definitive answer i don't believe that's correct your honor but also it's not an issue that was raised below  don't think it's a defense that they can raise at this at this stage and again as i mentioned crisis argument is that they stepped into the shoes of clackamas county and provided the medical care that the jail would have otherwise had to provide itself so they were fully they assume the responsibility and had the power to exclude exclude mr and abraham from the benefits of the services programs and activities of the clackamas county jail and like it said the statute is silent on it it only limits that nd provision and to a public entity and so i don't think we should also impose that same  limitation on the st part of the statute and i think part of the problem is is tries and relies on several cases where kind of indic the supreme court mentioned that title two only applies to public bodies one of them was the san francisco bishi hand case which the court didn't actually rule on any issues there they actually rigidly granted the writ and that and then said well now you've changed your arguments and they briefly mention that title two is only only applies to public bodies but they cited the pennsylvania department of corrections case to that conclusion in that case all that case held was that inmates are protected under title two  argument that were making was not in front of the supreme court and i don't think the exact argument has been in front of any of the other courts where you actually should break down the statute and look at it that way and our interpretation of the statute is to apply the full remedial effect of the statute and another argument that the courts and i believe it is made is that why would you have title three and title two and allow private entities to be sued under both of those statutes well that you could say the same thing about the rehabilitation act and any and title one title two or title three of the entities can be liable under both of those statutes for the exact same harm and there's overlap there so it's not like congress doesn't they'd never have statutes that overlap and it's a very i mean if we have the bend diagram the overlap is very tiny they were asking for the court to block you mention other circuits under title two seems like every circuit that is considered the definition of instrumentality under tight stephan ition a public entity has held that the inst for mentality means a state entity now in that portion of our argument there if you do find that it only applies to a public body i agree we do not have a no other circuit that agrees with our position we do believe that the dissent and medicine is the appropriate position when you look at narrow application of facts such as this case where the defendant admits they stepped into the shoes of the public entity yeah i'm curious though it seems to me that if you were trying to sue crys and under the  a title three may have been the better or more appropriate way to do so but you're not appealing the district courts dismiss that claim and i'm curious why you're not appealing that decision well relief well he doesn't have standing for it unless he can show that he's going to go back to quickness county jail and require medical treatment from and so having appealed prior case that we believe had even better facts for standing argument after someone was released from jail and still being able to get injected relief we decided that it you know we were already struck down once by this court so why do it again  if we could talk about the organs public accommodation act yes the provision that says under that act a place of public accommodation seems to be defined in terms of both places and the services provided by those and to tease or in those entities such that the services provided by cries in the jail is a local correctional facility well because if we interpret the statute that broadly then if mr abraham would have been sent to providence they would have been providing the medical services on behalf of the jail and all of sudden providence who is clearly liable under the statute would be excluded from liability just because they're treating an inmate and not someone in the general population and that is not the legislature did not write that exemption in here they put an exemption in for the public body itself and so horizons arguing both sides of the shield here under title two they're saying look like we have nothing to do  arguing that it applies to private entities in this narrow exception but you can't they can't prevail if you're saying it's because they're not the local correction facility they're not the public body if that's the are not very good at this that we're we're not extending the protections of a statute to stuff that happens in jails that's how if i were looking to try to interpret what the legislators meant when they did the statute that would be my  reading of it why would that reading being correct well i believe they only intend it to shield the actual local corrupt if you tell the syllabi tell tell me why there's nothing nobody cites legislative history so we're just dealing with the language of the statute and the language of the statute i'm rather clearly exempt the county from liability here your great yes like ms county is exist and so what why would why would the statute it clear the county of liability but impose it on its agent well because the legislature probably cares about the tax bill of the state of oregon and the liability that the taxpayers might be pain but a private corporation they might not care as much about all of the exemptions in there are strictly public bodies but like i said if we can extend it as far as if they send an inmate to providence also in providence isn't liable under this statute i just before your time is up but i want to ask it looks like an dismissing your last federal law claim under the rehabilitation act on motion for summary judgment the court never seemed to consider whether it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the sole remaining state law claim this under this organ public accommodation act did he have did was that made clear in any point well it's my understanding the state law claim was dismissed  the st two claims were dismissed on motions to dismiss and by the time we got to summary judgment the only thing left was so i don't know if the court already ruled on the state law claims months the motion to amend yeah yes there so i guess the court had previously dismissed the state law claim because we were only seeking equitable right relief in there and as a very and then you s was one way or the other i don't know what the right way to do this is and we may not be able to use it to an argument we couldn't figure out how to deal with procedural stuff shouldn't shouldn't the question of whether or not these people are covered defendants at the beginning or federal claims you can't really split them up to no one to say that but at this point yes i agree that ideally the organ courts would be the ones to decide an issue of st impression  and it wasn't something that i guess we thought of to ask the district court judge if he would refer the case to the oregon supreme court just gorgeous declined to exercise supplemental  f structure to provide different coverage for public and private entities public entities are subject to title two and private entities are subject to title three and a private i'm sorry a public entity who contracts with a private entity to provide some type of governmental service like in this case to provide medical services in a correctional facility that public enemy in eighty remains liable under title two and responsible for the obligations under title t and there is a claim for relief against the public entity but there is not a direct claim for relief against a private attorney so you saying that his claims should have been made under title three against your client correct that would be the that would be the correct title under the the statute of limitations issue or take it those claims could still be brought against your client those claims have been dismissed and they have not been titled three claims yes the title three claims were dismissed for lack of standing and and that would be where the title to claim would excess but not against a private entity and all courts to have considered this issue had concluded that shifted the course i didn't understand your your friend to be arguing very hard on th basically the scope of coverage under the oregon public eight public accommodation law subsection one of that statute defines what if public accommodation for both public and private entities subsection a person is private entities offering a service to the public b and c are the sections that you mentioned your honor that are public entities all three of those subsections under the st part of   all of the st parts of the statute that define what is a place of public accommodation under oregon law all of them are limited by the exclusions in subsection to their argument i take it is  that it's difficult because it's not a geographic place but their argument is that cries and is a place of public accommodation and the definition of public accommodation includes places or services and the statute essentially the general definition of public accommodation under oregon law is a place it's open to the public or a service that's offered to the public and so to the extent that a medical clinic and a jail could be considered open to the public the organ legislature has expressly excluded it and the legislative history in fact she has some debate about that point we've included it in our brief even though because like both sides yeah repeatedly you hear throughout the briefing that medical services in the county jail are offered by rather by cries and rather than the jail so this isn't that not significant well this the  medical services are we are certainly the medical provider they are but they are also provided by the county jail they provide the services through us i'm not sure if i'm understanding your question but see there seems to be a distinction in the wording of  one defines a place of accommodation as any place or service offered to the public a privilege that's generally what's considered a cover the that the private entities and then place it's open to the public or a service that's provided by a public body all three of those types of services including the service provided by a private entity is subject to the exclusion of section two i'm not sure if i'm getting your question or not but but it is these are category all the the exclusions in subsection two are categorical exclusions that simply identify types of places that are not subject to state public a county substitutes a private vendor for itself and providing your service you agree that the legislative history just doesn't deal with that it doesn't deal with it directly but if you look at the at the the page that i'm that i'm referring to page eight  of the testimony there's a debate there about whether or not i jails even qualify for services in jails even qualify for public accommodations without the exclusion and so there is a debate about well the meaning of a public accommodation is a place that's open to the public or a service that's open to the public or a service it's provided to the public and is a jail open to the public if th that is that is service that is offered to the public and so there was some debate about whether that was even included within that when there are even fell within the scope of public accommodation even without an exclusion does this even qualify as a place of public accommodation that would qualify given the nature of jails and so that's that's where it was considered and the court  public bodies are only two services provided by public bodies it identified certain places that simply are exempt from state public accommodation requirements without consideration or any distinction about who is providing the service contract yes in this case we agree to be subject to the federal statutes that is that was a matter of contract between the county and it might be held liable right exactly because again under title two they remain liable for the acts of a private contractor that's providing services for them and so that liability exists whether they are the ones directly providing the service or whether they're working with the public or private company to provide that service the court had me for i did have one question so we asked your opponent this question this is an issue of st impression and oregon yes the district court really didn't have much of a chance to think about whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction because of the procedural history of this should we give the court the opportunity to determine whether or not now that it knows all of everything that it knows to exercise supplemental jurisdiction they can just tell us yes or yes i mean to and then we can take up the issue on appeal work it say oh my gosh you're right i should have left this to be litigated in state court no i i think said i think that the district court properly wrapped up every claim in the case and they this this final state law claim was presented to the state court i'm sorry to the district court and the district court correctly rolled that this is simply outside of the scope of the oregon law well there's been an independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction such as diversity i believe there would have been for a city jurisdiction correct yes your honor just on the still a claim there's been a lot of discussion about these exclusions if the legislature wanted to go further with the exclusions than what they listed it would been really easy for them to just say and any private entities that provide services on behalf of these entities or just exclude inmates from the statute altogether as i mentioned previously if corrosion operates out of the building right next to the jail then i don't see how horizon could be excluded so the only exception is that they were providing this medical treatment inside the jail but if they're providing medical treatment outside of a jail to people and your client the treatment was provided inside the jail yes it was so your argument is that the g a o was geographically exclude that might leave the nd location is not excluded but why would that include the st one well again we don't we don't think it's the fact of the building it's what is providing and like i said if an inmate if entity is subject to the law it shouldn't matter whether or not the medical treatments provide it inside the jail or at the hospital down the down the street you're still providing what is a public accommodation to people and they have been excluded health care providers that provide medical treatment to inmates and we just should not insert a limitation that the organ legislature did not insert itself and about the legislative history i don't think it's really helpful at all because the discussion was just basically whether or not jails are free to discriminate against  or and not be subjected to liability it's when you brought the complainant or federal question jurisdiction is there an independent basis of jurisdiction for the state law claims is there diversity just jurisdiction you know i i don't know if there would have been diversity i think there probably would have been i would i don't have anything i can't say that there are in oregon corp i guess i can't dispute what you say is your complaint says it it's a delaware corporation  and that's for all i know they provide this kind of service all over the united states so i can't thank you thank you very much thank you both for your arguments here today and through abraham versus crys in health that is now submitted appreciate your presentation so we've gone to the last case on our