evergreen dynasty  was all right how many of those cases did your view or your farm panels proximately two hundred thirty four and prior to filing any of these as the record one of the public accommodations and the architectural barriers that existed there we had an expert doing a sort of rosa to further confirm the existence of the architectural barriers the causes of action that are persons act and health and safety code one nine five five which provides that there be sanitary facilities for the disabled and they also be open to the public so mr maule ski's actions that he brought the vast majority of those were against different defendants they were against different public accommodations there were landlords and tenants that were involved and the reason you may want to get right to versus representing just on that issue is that the majority of cases that are modern we're gauging the cases are settled how many of these what track that two hundred thirty four i think at the time possibly want had been tried and one reason that the cases are settled is because in fact they are meritorious when in fact they are the most egregious cases the most egregious by virtue of the fact that the cases and we litigate about this case i am about the reasoning of the district court is that and part if someone has valid eighty eight zero names seems went to the defendants after the time the complaint was served it explained to them what the architectural barriers were explain to them how they could take care of the architectural barriers and the action are always going to be the same the if we're taking the agree just cases and those are the ones i just explained they're going to be the same there's nothing there to talk about the number of cases that mr mostly could have  whether such an order should be entered but other factual elements of what the district court determined that we have to review their error the the court did not have any factual basis for it to make its determination that these were somehow contrived the district court apparently did not read or gave no weight to dr thomas hedges declaration in opinion that persons with disabilities that are using wheelchairs suffer a repetitive cumulative and continuous trauma to their upper bodies because they only have the use of their upper bodies each and every time they encounter architectural barriers now we've never set we've never said that you take the last restaurant that he goes to and it lets assume for a moment that there is rotator cuff injury and it would people with disabilities run into these different types of architectural barriers steep ramps where you're trying to wheel into a steep ramp open the door maintain the brakes and i have the wheelchairs swing around is that you're putting a lot of stress and strain on the upper body that once inside any attempt to utilize a restroom that again there's more stress and strain as far as being able to get and where the door pressures is great or the doors or are narrow but here are just based upon the pleadings the court makes a determination without taking any evidence of the exact well the court can not believe you know the tale of injury but you have to put it in context of everything that mr mostly encountered at each particular public accommodation with would be the lack of parking and and having to park someplace else and travel further if it be because it it doesn't just state that it's the restroom it's encountered in the architectural barriers that haven't been removed causes the repetitive and cumulative stress and strain of the upper body all of that would have to be looked at in each and every case and then i have to stop and i have i recognize you're responding to an answer can anyone point out to me that there is an attempt by that letter to extort money no place that talks about injunctive relief you know interviews your time thank you very much for your argument but he's being discriminated against also he's got frequent complaints so that isn't the test i expected him to argue i expected him to go then to say what the record shows and what the record shows here is that he had a number of complaints for the same day which maybe he went to all those places on the same day nobody can rule that out but the language was quite similar in each one of the cases now what here is a problem that somebody has got to see when they do it is there was a frequency there was a failure to follow through the complaint was filed and there was a failure to follow through and a period of time passed that on those the kinds of things you prepared to talk just about today well my client in particular when they first came to be had problems with the complaint because they didn't believe it happened it's a mom and pop restaurant they have twelve tables and they believe right from the beginning that mr most these factual allegations were contrived and that's what started th cases where he did not access the premises he still claims bodily injury the settlement agreements themselves speak going to a gag they don't actually go into  plaintiff could come along and say take a look at the same establish and say well it's nice that you replaced all of these items but that's not the appropriate standard and i'm following their lawsuit and you have to redo everything that you've done before and comply with the the appropriate standard so there are a number of factors in the record that would here that we review for clear error the judge we cited that he was making a fine day about a purpose to explore settlements but the judge didn't hold an evid well the judge did give the plaintiff substantial time to respond and that's the court is well aware of that and the parties created have substantial record in this particular matter so even absence of an evidentiary hearing of that would have the necessary it seems like there is an adequate record for the judge to   i think it can be because as we the court discussed earlier  all of the cases are are very similar and it stretches one's credibility to think that mr mostly would make transfer after transfer onto a  through a narrow passageway but rather even if the claims are valid he would determine that by measuring the passageway he was determined he doesn't make eighty eight  eight claims i suppose and yet contrive the the facts in such a way to create a state cause of action for personal injuries and i believe that's what least put on notice of all the other serial filings by mr maule ski and the court has to discretion to act accordingly so mu