questions and save about eight minutes for rebuttal we believe that the weight of the evidence is such that it shows that architectural barriers existed and cables restaurant cables failed to identify and remove propose under rate there's three criteria to be a person with a disability second that the entity this would be cable's is a public accommodation those first two issues were stipulated to the third issue then that would be before the court before the jury that the barriers exist and that there really achieve a bill to remove the barriers in this case is testified to by the expert where the height of the paper towel rack and the insulation of the the toilet configuration not being at the right height the fact that there were no there was not a rear grab bar an out of sight grab bar to assist person who will chair to be able to make a transfer from the wheelchair to the toilet that the area of the stall was not sufficiently large enough to also accommodate that that there was only restroom signage that the door pressure was excessive and that the ural was not accessible now jerk most who testified that the that many of those architectural berries existed on the three occasions that it was read the record in read the brief tell me if the following understanding which i have as a result of doing that is correct or incorrect or needs to be  facilities at this restaurant correct that's correct in my understanding also is and maybe i've missed something and i can be educated from the other side is that no evidence of any kind was offered by the defendant to r the noncompliance that's correct and that the defense case consisted almost entirely of the financial difficulties of compliance and that's not correct correct me on that there was testimony by our construction expert that the total cost of remediation was six thousand i'm talking about just the defense i'm not saying whether they were right wrong or indifferent i think it is what the defense consist of we know it didn't it clear our expert testimony by the construction afterward was that it was six thousand dollars to completely make the restroom accessible mr dawkins the vice president testified that they did have the financial wherewithal to do it and he also testified it's in the record that they would not do it unless compelled i wasn't trying to say they were right or wrong about what defense they did put on or whether you rebutted or not just what their defense consisted of from their point of view the difficult piece and in getting into compliance correct no that he that he was not an individual would have business that they did not have any of then it had nothing to do with whether the facilities were in compliance or not that's correct ok yes that's right i'm sorry and that this last question it went to the jury on a special verdict the question first question was is it compliant and they said yes  the the first question was do you find the defendant failed to identify and remove the architectural barriers and cables restaurant and they said and they said no ok and that the only reason that the jury came back with a no is that they were basically you know prejudiced by the argument i mean mr mostly says you know three hundred lawsuits is that he's a business and not an individual so with that i'd like to entertain you know some of the questions or possibly give this panel some of the background of some of the background that's kind of led to this case the issue like the number of cases that he says he's filed that currently is in the ninth circuit in the case of mole ski you know i can't speak for the other judges on this panel but i am not bothered by whether this man has filed one  they were observed by mr mostly and these other folks who were compliant i don't believe during the course of the trial there was evidence relating to the compliance there was a lot of discussion relating to remodel there was a lot of testimony relating to problems with landlords for this remodel and there was testimony relating to the concept that one was not willing to remodel these bathrooms because it's in a confined space it's the least space without blowing out walls and completely remodelling this place and that's as far as it got because what happened was is that and the testimony was relating to a particular paragraph in a lease that basically said we could buy you out and the concept was if you're going to go to remodel how much money we're going to spend and then have because the landlord was thinking of turning this into some kind of office complex you don't this had gone to the jury on the general verdict no special interactive doors of any kind and you had prevailed the pretty compliance and all of the evidence put on by the plaintiffs showed that the restroom was not in compliance it will be to respond that i had to step back and look at how this case was tried and how the case was presented state court and we presented this special verdict form and the jury instruction to judge v c in the district court level and that is the fourth of our brief and that is the only instruction that exists in the state of california under casey and it's thirty ten if i'm not mistaken and the thirty that's the instruction and thirty eight twenty i think the jury verdict form the problem would have been solved i agree with you exactly because that was the first issue the court or the jury had to decide so when alex play in how we get here judge to receive prepared the special verdict form and i think mr frank which would agree that we were not given much opportunity to address for the verdict the very first question would be had he been the scrim they the against and that is casey that is if you go to california law that is the only instruction that you have or jury verdict for didn't we just didn't come about so what happened both mr let's step back just for we have an entire series of jury instructions read to a jury about eighty eight and the unruh act citing it verbatim on and on about discrimination against individuals all of these instructions basically conceptually would have been irrelevant if the only question was compliance with the eighty eight hour a day guidelines all of those instructions would be irrelevant why even to have them it's irrelevant but no those instructions are relevant because this was an unroot case and so when both counsel got up mr frank vege and i we tried this case and when we both argue this case we went through this jury verdict form question by question but the very first question was the one that both mr frank of each and i concentrated on and that was the question that came out in effect to be this jury  question that was never asked was mr wells be discriminated against and my mr frank of its went through it said the same thing he was discriminated against and you find that we start down that thing yes yes yes yes yes and it was my turn and in the closing arguments i went through the thing about being individuals individual individual and you come to that first question and i said discriminated against you check no and at that point you have nothing further to do now again all of this would have been nicely and old have we had this other verdict form or  least i should say the very first question and subsequently to this case mr frank of it's and i've had other cases and that question has been i have fought vigorously to have that question but there at the very first one  well that could be but we i think personally we ended up with the result that we thought we should be getting in the sense of the very first question being was he discriminated against your argument is this wasn't  was an individual correct that ethel that's correct and that that was the position taken and i went through the entire trial unfortunate like i said the only way that point could have been answered because of the way the jury verdict form came out that the very first question and i that was my comment and i went through that form just like mr frank of it's did if you get that question and you find that he is not in the scrimmage against he's not an individual you check no and this was an americans with disabilities act case with a court taking supplemental jurisdiction or civil code section fifty one where we look for damages under fifty two the reason that the special verdict was that the court one of the jury to make a determination as to what were the architectural barriers that existed that's why we went through the hole that they have architectural barriers and that's where the jury instruction voluminous but the point is it with the first two stipulations with the preponderance of the evidence is the only thing that we needed then prove is that the barriers existed and that they were readily achievable to move meaning without great difficulty or expense cable's was a preexisting restaurant prior built prior to the americans disabilities act of one nine hundred ninety so with the americans with disabilities act says under will test you don't have to build a brand new restaurant you have to do those things that are readily achievable to do that you yourself can do difficult and these are if you go to thirty six point three zero four b these are the examples of the d o j of those things that are easy to do forget about money these are easy to do do same thing with putting the lever hardware on the psych so when you go down through this hole you know let me these are all things they could have done the only thing that they may have had to wait for if you want to buy off on a landlord argument which there was very little of is making the stall even bigger so the weight of the evidence from mostly the expert the construction expert and mr dawkins himself the vice president is he wasn't going to do it until he was compelled to and i argued to the jury the vice president has said he's not going to do it until he's compelled to do it the court is the one that makes determination regarding the existence of barriers mostly by definition is discriminated against when he goes into a place of public accommodation and encounters architectural barriers and there's no intent issue here there isn't any it's you know it becomes that simple their defense has to be that it's not really achieve a will to do anything and if they