due for reevaluation of the year two thousand and eight tests such as a typical run of the mill case for decision through declaratory judgment there's nothing particularly special like this case is a private to break because what you have is the constitutional test for whether a case is right but make the general give me a little or a summary of the cases that have that happen then there would be a financial loss but there's no direct injury to the party trying to break the action in every one of those cases was there an ongoing administrative action tire whether the city of tire was going to be able to take so on the property potentially but so tired as not taking any of the property once resolving the underlying what else would you like to tell us well the other issue here is whether the case is right or is are could be just is whether with excuse me whether there was any harm because the district judge very has the power  discretion so one alternative for this court which if it reaches this point would be to say she didn't do exercise or discretion we're going to remand the case for her to reconsider it under the pearl are factors and after the appropriate fin at that time so many years before this escalation clause was going to be considered the parties decided not to fight about it and they entered amendment true to the agreement which had a provision which essentially provided for video agree to disagree and put this dispute off until later now it gets to be you know in the two thousand and principle wants to get this thing resolved and that's why i brought the statute but she the judge seems to have that is more than possible financial loss close quote if the court declines to resolve the parties contract for you this time the way i understand what you're saying is yeah they've got a hardship but all they lose money if they don't get a resolution now and it looks like she's taking the o t phrase from pieces that don't say if all the  would lose this money then you don't granted declaratory judgment it looks like she's quoting the phrase out of context where the cases you're dealing with a different problem so this looks like it's wrong this standard makes sense when applied to a private party case and and i think it does because the rationale for that standard is got federal courts should not intend on themselves prematurely they have to be cautious and say what if we lose in the rent is what robinson family says it is so that's going to generate a price so far apart from those dollars point of view when the buyers ten have a deal the ransom is ten thousand dollars a month flat rent ten thousand dollars a month the landlord comes to the tenant staffroom number of years and says you know i can't do this prices have gone up  janitors and taxes and all of the rent is now fifteen thousand dollars and the tenant says that's not my problem it's ten thousand a month that's what police and the landlord says  here's the deal we're going to put it off for five years but in five years it goes to fifteen thousand a month and i'm just going to i'm change the locks on the doors and walk your actionis and hire movers put your stuff on the sidewalk it's fifteen thousand a month it's not right until that point i look for to know where in two thousand and eight rolls along how's it going to be resolved well i think until we get to the two thousand and eight it's not right because again the cases are very clear that there has to be these kinds of things are to go they will publish an opinion saying with the judge did with fine nobody but a fool would enter into a ninety nine year lease in the twenty percent of america that constitutes the ninth circuit you just a little bit the property value of ninety nine year leases that form of property is just destroyed in this standard and like i said the rationale makes sense as applied to these cases principle cited in principle cited federal question cases where you're declaring copyright  or you're declaring patent liberty and the federal question case the courts clearly have an interest in getting involved it was saying there's no compelling interest in getting involved here it's not a federal question case i talk discretion and i'm going to go ahead and  happened in two thousand and eight that they could still exercise their purchase option this was not an immediate hardship i didn't want to touch out that you don't read this footnote in a vacuum and you look at it in conjunction with the entire record and principle is claimed t to have discretion in getting involved in private disputes but there is extensive analysis i want to make sure that i touch on these cases because there are several cases that are down to the proposition that and she's trying to come to grips with the if you interview reserve's decision so i see it is just what a conscientious judge does at the end of a long complex summary judgment  decision dismissing the case i entirely agree there is no the the court was going through and describing what she thought the issues were and what's interesting about her to exercise of people that buy property where they know the lease is disputed you're just going to need an action of law you can just pay the lower rent in two thousand and eight and they can bring a forcible  the other thing i just wanted to point out i kind of got in the form of almost a question but i don't understand the robinsons when they seem to say that the principal or any other other