ready mix versus men only a short and plain statement of a claim problem or as the supreme court has noted the liberal system of noticed leading a set up by rule eighty two requires that choi only set out scuse me does not require the choice that out in detail the facts upon which it makes this claim the rule only requires an affair notice be given to a pelleas of choice claims so however in artfully pleaded no matter how are we more remote the recovery appears on the face of choise a minute complaint we are here the choice of choice claims are sufficient to at least call for the opportunity for choice to offer supporting eligible by the arizona where the ship o however we argue here that there you know you can't unfortunately can't distinguish between courts on religion or religious significance here to choice however that's a question we believe that is a fact and we should have the opportunity to develop further beyond initial pleading stage what's what's your best case that suggests that this violates the establishment e with a piece of property which is not architecturally protected there's no architecture here we're talking about a beauty the amount that is being mined for aggregate  and you can separate as you can where there's a church involved a building or something of architecture of that nature here you're looking only at you know a view and this place that has this religious significance and is also deemed to have this place of religion for these indians so you're you would go back and attempt to prove that it has no religious significance that is the state creating a religious religion above the rights of choice it's private property or sensually telling choice that he cannot mine this property his private land because of these religious beliefs of the indian feds which go through the state so there's no choice is essentially losing three hundred thousand dollars worth of profit each year that it can't mine and cannot enter into contracts with they can if they would like pay a price to mice and however that does not happen and the amount of money that comes through that cannot sustain the livelihood of john mccain and until you're ready mix your state law claims appear to be barred by statute of limitations problem mine and it's because of these religious beliefs and this policy goes back as a set out in the complaint several years we're not going on arguing on one discrete act we're talking about it's a series of amendment cost you a lot of problems when your state law claims  we have potentially viable claim and establishment clause claim however the state of claims are also such that are part of that in that you have a violation or alleged violation of the arizona constitution establishment of religion and under there's in our constitution to the right against special laws being enacted against an individual here such as toy those are the three violations however remedies of that excuse me reckon be vindicated through you've made your case pretty clearly why don't we hear your side then you can respond claims there's no case that supports that proposition there's got to be a showing of at least some factual basis for the claim and all we have here is an argument that the state cannot elect not to buy material from a historically or culturally significant site if all or a portion of that significance arises from religious background what they're basically telling telling this court is that we've had constitutional violations for years with regard to any state parks which may have been and may have risen from missions or missionary activity  looking into private lee own property and they are in the selfsame if they were going to accept the native americans claim that the dismount of material has religious significance and therefore we're going to endorse it endorse that claim in fact and they're buying interfere with the choices ability to productively use that material there for their imposing upon that recognize that and we're going to preserve there's a factual distinction there whether it's legally significant i'm not sure but isn't that something that at least might warrant going beyond the emotion author noticed you know that it should be dismissed that the difference here is that there's private property involved now what the what the plaintiff the fail to address or the appellate his trail to address is that the state is using its right broken its right to decline to purchase materials from a site which which meets a generally applicable rule we are not say well the effect of that one application is that a religious structure was recognized as being historically significant just as any other structure which is of sufficient age was a good submission significance for some reason even of a church the church owns that site the church controlled that site the church said despite the landmark ruling we want to change the character of this building and despite that certain situations however we would submit that the as applied challenge does not work in this case because we still have the application of that general rule that there could be some instances i don't know but under this rule certainly there knowledge as to what the claim is what we're saying is the claim gives us so much notice that we can say without further inquiry it's it doesn't pass one of the points would you like to make with regard to the eleventh limited waiver or abrogation of the eleventh amendment in two thousand d seven and it in direct terms talks about lawsuits against the state so so even if there was some question as to the appl ty to individuals under title six the waiver which should be narrowly construed or the abrogation which it would be narrowly construed doesn't reach individuals where they've gotten such limitations that i think morgan is pretty clear here construction cases come and they go and there's a decision that made an individual decision can you use this site as material for a construct those are discre race what they have to show is that there's a violation or a discrimination between similarly situated people what they're what they're saying is the unions are on one side of this issue saying it's significant historically significant and the owners are on the other side of this you saying we want to use the materials but they're not similarly situated there's nothing in the complaint from which one can infer for example  church of european descent of white people supposedly running that church that there would have been a different result there is nothing that supports the racial discrimination or national origin official did take action a bar they used to would refute because of its religious and sacred significance theirs and officials did so despite the facts are absolutely clear the only question is whether some any in any way they can support the claim scuppering what are you looking for in discovery well the your our what we're looking for is in discovery would be the facts essentially that there's arizona officials this