our firm goes by me first before any other attorney touches it that's just the procedure we have i was concerned by the rule of a motion and i said please deal with that as i was told it wasn't a problem and that it would be address also i didn't participate in it but it seemed the perrett and adequate for me there's no question because of the firm there what occurred i didn't personally continue to advocate or anything at all bloomberg clearly didn't tell me because you always been accurate with me and he's a very bright guy that he was arrested by you at ninety seven so clearly was a glaring factual or the other side didn't find that for years i didn't know d some deficiency in your explanation i think that you did not review the materials that were submitted to the state court paper like the rest i had my secretary type it up and then i read it really really quickly i wasn't reading it for the facts i was assumed to blumberg knew he was talking about and i didn't catch it but i think it's a rhetorical because of herman seventeen was inaccurate and when it was brought to our attention we took appropriate action and withdrew it and changed the theory you'd have been ok but you didn't you have mailed it and i looked through the law and it looks to me pretty clear that you get those he gets those three days and you didn't get in the three days  language general eleven says that if the if the court ahead of time prescribes a period as my colleague jeff robinson suggests that's not what happened here after the fact when it was clear to the court that you had missed the deadline by several days three days to be exact the judge said well you know i guess it doesn't really make any difference because he wouldn't have done anything different and that's the point what the court is doing is it is exercising discretion to ignore the three days not prescribe the new period after the fact now what about the right welcome i mean i certainly understand your argument one of the you know i don't want to impose myself on my colleagues but what about your other argument is there is there another argument here there's plenty more argument against the argument that this is absolutely absolute wrong party and this litigation goes on for years and the city attorney's office never figures out that he sued the wrong party i mean i'll be honest with you if we're talking about negligence here that i represented a defendant and i never bothered to ask him by the way did you arrest these people i mean how in the world get litigated for five years and nobody filed a motion to dismiss because they sued the wrong people and let me just say one thing first of all that the two officers that we're talking about you it and martin are represented by conflict counsel c that's what the tensions that's continuing an unreasonable to let this did he is paying for out a conflict council on these two officers incurring tremendous expense i know i understand and i agree the city should have figured this out sooner i know it's true there's no doubt about it i don't know what went wrong but the fact is it is litigation if you put this case in the system to begin with and we talked it there for five years when he or his partners it's not that big of a firm should have communicated should have known there was no factual basis for that so we gave the safe harbor notice i'll be at with or without the extra three days at that point doesn't somebody there you know what the games are we're not going to go through the motions of summary judgment we're not going to wa about doing this on my own absolutely he had the inherent power to issue this very think about it but he didn't actually do it well i think we finally got in there and he said ok we'll go with this vehicle was he going to have problem is that the ninth circuit has said you can't after the fact everything that was going on i'm very sympathetic to the district court judge obviously i'm not the only former good district court judge on this panel i know how i convey any of the facts but the facts and he is a wonderful judge but the fact of the matter him for which if there was a basis for sanctions you should sanction my law firm i didn't continue to advocate this i didn't do it and the reason our use was probably is not because it's a huge amount of money i think it's a lot of money and it's not because of the