what is the concept of ongoing and ongoing state action and from the perspective of the appellant we believe the case should be controlled by the eight the in aaron vs target corporation we believe that to be the most even handed and nine mechanistic approach to the first prong of younger  underlying facts for younger of stench and are as follows in this case in this case the that there are two properties there's ten forty slawson and what's the other one ten ten ten ten you run across multiple properties and in the first property get a has a fee simple interest in the second property get they has a lease holder interest but the issue we have here is the pending proceedings in the state yes doesn't really matter if it's them less than a month ago were dismissed conditionally with the right of the redevelopment agency to refile upon the correction of certainty that it's in its resolution of the system in each instance that is the issue of concern to us here the private used issue from the fifth amendment was not the issue that the state court addressed in dismissing conditionally the two state court cases experienced with conditional dismissals either dismissed or you're not dismissed well that's the argument i try to impress upon the state court judge but there is no it's like being half pregnant you either are you not you've dismissed or you're not but for the purposes of the state court proceedings both of the court dismissed the both of the state court proceedings because the resolution of the city adopted in each instance by the redevelopment agency was now it's not because in each case all proceedings that were that had been calendar thereafter had been removed from the calendar sounds to me like there's nothing pending there is something in fact today right now at it eight o'clock this morning the redevelopment agency was attempting to adopt a remedial resolution of the day but that's when the agency i'm talking we're dealing with younger here and the issue in younger is what is the status of the state court proceedings in relation to the federal court proceedings and if in fact these proceedings have been dismissed as seem to know her problem or is there i don't  know you tell me i would agree if i understood the nature of a conditional dismissal what's the condition in the in the order the condition in the order is twofold the redevelopment agency have to clean up and refile a new adequate resolution of the sexy how long is that going to take well it's being adopted right now as we talk in addition the redevelopment agency have to pay attorney fees to my client attributable to this delay does that mean that the old complaint then will be reinstated refile in research or what what does the court had in order to satisfy the california procedure back that issue i believe has been decided by the trial court as they will just take up where we left off  approach that is no new replete in and and resume where we left off when each case was dismissed now that that interpretation is not right for help with you in the state court yet we believe it to be erroneous we believe that you cannot have a failure of jurisdiction as occurred in the state court and have it be revived in the middle of the in the middle of the case that either existed when it was had filed or not but that's not these proceedings are with respect to the both properties right we're not it's not it's no different between one and the other in the federal proceed in other words the suit of the federal proceeding was found on the fourteenth of july the state court was found on the fifteenth is that correct on the ten ten yes that is correct or less pretty clear cut isn't it ye we think so the federal court proceeding was filed before the state court proceeding yes case the court held that it was the court could not examine what was going on in the state court because the under the aaron case that we've cited there was no there was an attempt to examine what's going on in both cases so what we look at is whether or not iran applies in either case aaron applies to either the first case in the course that it did not and i'm referring to the circuit decision an errant or particle if that doesn't apply in the first case then it can apply in the second case where the federal action was filed first all right but you have the holocaust case even though the federal proceeding was technically filed of it before the state the court in politics often was written was made not on the basis of the first prong of younger that is ongoing state proceedings it was based on the second prong of younger abstention that is the application because of the farrier of the second prong really really didn't address the first prong in pollock cough similarly in the other case that's been cited both by the district court and and the issue of what is required to satisfy the first prong of younger that is is it a rote mechanistic approach that is  sufficiently to be described as substantial or it's called embryonic if it has moved forward or do you take the approach of the circuit which did squarely address that issue and said in the situation where either this court case is found hers for the federal court case to file first you look at the christie digs in both the state and federal is a a focus primarily of the courts on criminal process and i have seen a hesitancy of the circuits to get involved in younger abstention are there any other questions proceeding that would be our position