respect to the st issue the entire argument comes down to what does one what does one have to plead and prove to obtain relief under the american force ability and from what i've been able of disability if a public place accommodation and an int and an injury if it is not the defendant prevails on that point now the get relief under the a d f that same thing was followed through more recently in maryland amongst a whole bunch of other cases now tracking back what the court then did so if there was a serious and substantial horray that the the claim was none justiciable i'm talking about the physical premise then she was truly free to find facts under twelve the one they wouldn't be the st time that this to court does is just that so i guess what i'm asking you is why didn't she your nd question is the judge could make findings of fact were the conversion proper the conversion however was not proper and the reason being that the facts to sustain jurisdiction i need to fret a future injury are part and partial of the cause of action and underdone bar morrison simply cannot do that when court cannot make it took determination to fact the procedure is it has to be treated the conversion was proper the judge could go tomorrow could have done what she did which was take into account credibility and consider the the met the merits as opposed to simply deciding whether or not  from the ones in this case and what according to van over in order to claim splitting to apply you have to have the same the same parties with the same basic claim in the same court at the same time now in this case we st and foremost in that over all of the causes of action accrued prior to the st lawsuit being filed were just not the case here under merah the causes of action for the claims for the interact while ations didn't occur until later when ms kennedy encountered the defendant's nude improved web site and then encountered the rd party booking site and the latter were not arguably contained in the st lawsuit the nd thing is the time line is these cases these claims i should say were not pending at the same time and the reason was that the a not depending of same time now the other the crucial thing though is under the basic holding d the battle over was that the nd case would be barred only if the st one had gone to a final judgment theoretically and would then bar the nd and in this case the causes of action there are different cause of action the nd cause the cause of action nd didn't even verdun occur at the st time  in the american kennel club place i believe dissent was correct that these cannot be squared with cases social sharps oh holding that all needs to be established is an intent to return the property that is a published decision the same thing  another but when the court finds that it doesn't state or create an actual case or controversy the court is saying we don't have the power to mr collins referred to and which i believe is the leading case in this circuit on claims splitting the work goes through a lengthy discussion but one of the most important things is it explains that the claim splitting doctrine thereby ensures that plaintiff may not split up his demand in prosecuted by piece you know are present only a portion of the grounds upon which relief is sought and leave the rest to be presented in a nd suit if the st fails so i would construe that's exactly what miss kennedy was trying to do was basically buy an insurance policy by filing the nd suit while the st suit was ending so that in the event you were not to be successful in the st suit she would have this as a backup is there is there reason follow those cases and i think those cases although there are unpublished of calm come to take on almost the significance of being published in that they relied upon by this corps and also relied upon by district the court there's a further requirement that you must find a likelihood of future harm that will be redress by the relief and that's where the standing issue comes into place and the standing you have to have that standing at the time you file the lawsuit and as we s submitted in our brief at the time the court is the decision is decide or the judgments made and that's why a just miss with prejudice is appropriate because when you seek injunctive relief illusion case speaks of that you need to have a concrete definite intention to show that there's going to be future harm that's an element of the remedy not necessarily an element of the cause of action and i think that's a distinction and in a motion for this missile on the grounds that there was no jurisdiction over iraq and if you look at the palin's brief and their argument i don't think they're taking issue with the conversion of the issue is whether she improperly applied the standard by making a credibility determination but there what i don't believe they argued that it was improper to convert it's just once it was converted she applied the improper standard which i think is a distinction and i think with regard to the conversion and the standard she applied we have guidance from the circuit  that was correct and we have and that is in the houston burbs as murat supermarkets aids which are minister calling referred to which is the th circuit which is a published opinion and in that case on the issue was  to streets away the facts and is not constrained to new them in the light most favorable to the point in your mind at that teaching that's exactly what judge ongaro did in this case she had before her miss kennedy's decorations she had her three decorations she had before her two depositions and she reviewed those depositions and she was ready to weigh the facts which she did part of our position is that mr calmness arguing that there was a credibility determination made and we submit that it would have been proper to rule the same way even on the rule fifty six dollars standard because there was no need to make the credibility determination that based on the time disputed that accident presented by mr kennedy that the court would have been correct ruling as a matter of law that the houston factors that not been met on the issue of standing you know keep in mind your honor that the plaintiff has the burden of coming forward with crew to show by a preponderance of the evidence that she has a future likelihood of future harm and that is you have the requisite concrete intention to return to the property so as but what it found was i submit was that she couldn't credit mr kennedy's testimony to meet the standard that was required to show the houston factors were standing which are set forth in the brief and what needs to be shown proximity prior patronage proximity to the location and and that she is these general allegations in her declaration that she is going to visit in the near future without any specifics as to why or how or what would cross or to visit in the near future as a matter of who are insufficient and we've had other cases some of the unreported decisions wh evidence he shows the lead intent to visit we have got one comment about the reservations he said that he made only one call to make a reservation they said it  soon you know how much in advance of the best of all that was i believe it was in october when she visited the hotel in the record she said that she was visited the hotel october th or th and that she tried to no and this is a good point if i may cause this would be a good example of what would be intertwined with the cause a back should work were to dismiss the case because she said i went to the conflicting testimony we have no record she has a declaration i was there i checked in that would have been improper to dismissed for lack of standing on on the grounds that she didn't encounter any barriers and that's the type barberry was ever in the property at all which is several are to what my hypothetical in this case and that in the issue was whether she had entered the hotel or not and that was the grounds or judge angara dismissing her case and i would just complaint in floridian won and that was denied or granted and we ended up with the d same result we would be appealing already in one and that's what the what would be decided so what she did  had gone through a parking lot and saw that there wasn't this able parking and she went other times and say there had been a spot that wasn't compliant it would still be the essential elements of the plane would be a lack of parking  elements or a claim against authority hotel were the failure to have a compliant online reservations and she tried to split those clauses back into separate cases and the court the standard is an abuse sh of discretion when it comes to claims living because the court has the power to control its own docket the your honor the and the szell point is that the the whole issue on with respect to the physical barriers is that the conversion was improper and the pele simply cannot have the both ways either the plaintiff has to prove and a threat a future injury in which case it is part and parcel of the cause of action or the plaintiff does not have to prove  prove likelihood of future injury in which case the plaintiff would have won in the court below and simply one or the other now with respect to the why the conversion is improper the court cannot  improper finally with respect to the claim splitting that was addressed in the two district court showing cases which are cited in my brief the claim accrues when barriers encountered the trip advisor et al barriers were not encountered until a later point of time until they were encountered there was no causal action and with respect to the hotel's own web site they