the next item on our calendar is michael newsome ferris's several people who are on submission and case is decided in other circuits one of the key things that they look at it was whether the dogs posed any danger to the police officers here or there was absolutely no danger in fact they were killed days after they were seized and days after any legitimate search was conducted in the residence the nd reason is that they also had days to consider the proper course of action in this case the dogs had been seized by the humane society and then they continued to you know reside at the humane society and then the killing occurred after that days after that what's the status of the humane society if we can tell from the record as a stage actor the operate to euthanize animals that it's holding just as some separate entity i think some authority it's a little bit difficult to tell from the complaint but i think what the answer is is that the or they would be properly characterized as being in a reveals they were instructed by the police to do that and because of that they would be involved as a as a conspirator with the with the police and they never said why you know they said do we have to can we put them out for adoption or anything like that they never doesn't say anything about anywhere they never try to defend or represent the interests of the dogs there's nothing that reveals them trying to defend the interests of the dogs there is a there were telephone can't do was a telephone talk more i think believed to telephone conferences and in both telephone conferences the humane society was essentially repeating the line or the explanation of was given by the police and that they were aggressive and dangerous right but the evidence in the record is that they pose no dangers to the officers and that's critical because of the evidence in the record all we have is a complaint right yes the allegations on the record are that they pose no danger to the officers because of the time right these dogs you're challenging both or one of the other what it would be both ok so the seizure i think with the complaint alleges is that these dogs are seasoned because they were aggressive or a threat in fact one of them according to the complaint was in a cage at the time right right and they were seized because mr bergen wouldn't play ball and wouldn't come down and speak with the law enforcement officers that's correct ok and so i mean there's a number of defendants here and there is only a couple of individuals who are identified in the complaint the receptionist and own in the chief of police and the person from the humane society which is lighter but the other officers are not really mentioned at all other than their tactic with a police report that indicates an a c s the dogs were right there would be i mean the evidence that they are defendants would be based on the police reports that are cited in the appendix and they're the improper reason i mean they did there's no statements attributed to them right over this there's no statements no statements about retaliatory motive in the complaint about what they said but their actions are reflected in the notes that were taken of the arrest of the actions are duties as part of the department who has a policy of retaliation so because they are conspirators in the action the other actions of the coconspirators including bogan would be something that they could be held liable for until they  and was not under arrest at this time right at the time of the seizure know that he could be taken care of them there was no need to seize them from the house that's correct at the time of the darks destruction he was onerous but he had attempted to arrange for somebody else to care for the dogs arrested by the time they were out with the humane society he was arrested by the time they were killed and cars and cars and yes and he had arranged for someone to care for the dogs he had attempted to get them released to one of his relatives i think it was a smaller dog and you and everything you're saying here is based on the complaint right you're not going outside of the pleadings the complaint in the police which is part of the cleaning yes all right so the rd factor and we've talked about it a little bit is the retaliatory motive and that's i think very important to some of the other car for the th amendment and the other causes of action because it's an intentional action and you know under th th amendment law and also under the substantive due process claim that we have the the fact that is an intentional action ways in favor of a phone in that it's not reasonable and that's and that's how that they do it is something that you would wear under the talent he of the circumstances so i believe the th amendment based on decided case law unless court and the other circuits is is relatively clear i think the other question is  process and we've broken that down into two points the two main the to be some point the district court i think clearly got it wrong on relying on the law of case because the law of case didn't deal with intentional actions and as this court is found in two other cases it says if there's was intentional substantive violation of constitutional rights law doesn't apply in the parakeets doesn't apply as a result there is no need to show that post deprivation remedies are adequate if you violate the constitution then intentionally violate the constitution that is enough to state a claim of the due process clause under the circuits past decisions the to be some point i think is probably the most difficult suppling to talk about in terms of where the lawsuit at this point the judge in do judge below rested his decision on the hudson case which is in my mind a parallel to the parent versus taylor  they relied on due process cases to get to the result the upshot of that is is one there is a violation that violation of the constitution the i would say the provocation case or curse one that violation happens if it's an intentional  under the reasoning in the next case in the supreme court that that suggests to me that the result in hudson was incorrect and because it's an intentional you know it's an intentional action due process violation also  at the time that the intentional act curves so i believe one of the the district court was wrong to rely on hudson and it has been subsequently overruled by the supreme court for the relief you seek is for us to vacat actually reverse the dues to coon and let this case go on and require the on this side to finance right yes i think that's correct i think there is i think a couple of things have to happen the st is that i think it needs to be reversed on the th amendment and due process claim because the court held those things and if they're not reversed each point is not reversed there can be an argument below that they were affirmed because they were not mentioned in isolation so i think that there has to be a reversal on the those in the st instance when it returns to the district court for further analysis of the retaliation claims what you did not reach the right correct and in my view you know the other interesting legal issue here is that the retaliation based on the th in the th amendment which we cited to you a district court case doesn't seem to be a lot of well developed law on the th and th the member retaliation claims most of those usually get subsumed in the st amendment and its claims but in this case i think there's a particular reason to perhaps address those because this is probably on the allegations in accepting allegations is true this is probably as pure a case you're going to see where there's an there's an of retaliation from the right to the bright natural permanent and the the right for it to seek the assistance of counsel his allegations are directly addressing the fact that he asserted his right to talk to his counsel and he asserted is right not to incriminate himself so that might be a useful thing for this court to do but not us thank you no one to respond to thank you thank you and nothing in their brief requires you to tell us anything and their brief oh they don't have and they've filed briefs and every unfortunately you know the arguments aren't developed by somebody on the holdings the only people appearing tonight i know of in grimm co and goes to every home this is a case of foreclosure we don't have the plaintiff here the attorney for s l f who commands the vixen proceedings a year after the judge in a foreclosure and the plaintiff attempted to invoke the court's supplemental jurisdiction to assert two state law claims against mr crimm co but this court has held that there is no supplemental jurisdiction when the court doesn't have original jurisdiction to anchor the case to the federal courts in the st place and that's exactly what we have here citizenship of the each of the defendants which could establish diversity jurisdiction and each time the plaintiff failed to state a claim under federal law now the factual basis for the complaint is that the original foreclosure was invalid because the original mortgage people's choice transferred that mortgage while it was in bankruptcy proceedings and didn't get authority from the bankruptcy court but this court just held in the mortgage foreclosure action itself just in september that the bankruptcy court did in fact give people choice the authority to transfer that mortgage and i have the citation for that if you'd like it is prior to this tank there was no stay of  under state law asserted claims one for professional negligence and one for violation of section three hundred and forty nine of the new york's general business law in new york you can have a professional negligence claim unless you have with the attorney unless there is some exception for fraud or collusion and in this case the complaint doesn't allege that the plaintiff had an attorney client relationship with crim co co represented the company that  no they represented s l f which was eventually had a mortgage and then was evicting his tenants who were there and there's no he the plaintiff can't plausibly allege any exception because mr crinkle wasn't involved in the of general business law that section requires the player to allege consumer oriented conduct that conduct this directed to consumers as a whole and not at individuals and in this case the allegedly improper foreclosure and the subsequent addiction jurisdiction here because the court lacked the original jurisdiction and the plaintiff also in any event failed to state a claim that's viable under state law  we asked this court to affirm the district court's decision granting dismissal of the underlying action as the district court had neither diversity nor federal question jurisdiction as this court may be aware this is the plaintiff's appellants rd attempt to undo a judgment of foreclosure and sale in a related district court foreclosure action commenced in two thousand and sixteen on an investment property which was later appealed in this court and is appealed similarly in the instant action this court should affirm the district court's decision for the following reasons the plaintiff appellant ruddy despite the many chances provided by the district court because of his pro s status fail to properly plead diversity jurisdiction plaintiff appellate simply argues that because your home l l c had diversity jurisdiction in the two thousand and sixteen foreclosure action it follows that he has diversity jurisdiction in this action this is not the case as no diversity jurisdiction was invoked by plaintiff ronnie regarding the citizenship of the appellee defendants lott limited liability members and limited liability partners despite the filing of the subsequent amended complaints and the guidance in the district court's order given by kogan ready never played diversity of citizenship with any specificity or particulary equally unavailing of this court's jurisdiction were  person who uses any instrumentality of interstate commerce with the principal purpose which is the collection of any debts or who regularly collects or attempts to collect their rectally or indirectly debts owed due or searching to be owed due to another and then they launch claims as well as state court claims and sometimes we don't even know we're being sued we're not served with the papers here based on the collateral  el from the two thousand and sixteen action and the fact that the two thousand and seventeen action already dismissed the f t c claims with prejudice against appellee gustave home and the the claims made here in under this action was similarly fail as to a law firm the vast majority of courts in this court have found that such an action to enforce an interest in real property does not qualify as that collection regarding the claims involving violations of the federal credit reporting act the district court was correct in its analysis of rowdies claims pursuing to sixteen a one s to a and b as against appellee under sixteen a one to plead any of the facts to show that the defendant was starving received any notice of dispute from any consumer agency or that any alleged harm or loss of credit resulted in say with regard to the additional arguments raised in the appeal regarding the bid price and that the plaintiff in the underlying two thousand and sixteen foreclosure action failed to name the st mortgagee the court must ignore those arguments because they were never and if they were never