case to one already decided by the court the judges who decided it were judge kleinfeld judge beezer and judge to hey the case was taylor versus wesley four o two fred third nine twenty four in that case the court unanimously addressed the application of the eleventh amendment to the facts and principles of this case and it's published unanimous decision the court noted the following the controller knowingly violates bot statutory requirements and the constitutional requirements imposed by the fourteenth amendment as a result the controller's conduct of seizing property that is not subject to seizure and taking that property into custody without the state has retroactively applied a change in the interest rates law backwards across the custodial accounts interestingly enough the controller made that same argument in wesley versus u s bancorp one fourteen callup fourth five seventy seven at page five eighty one at five and five eighty two in fact the attorney who made that argument that laws are to be applied  controller as a good servant if i could refer to the law your honor on that on the hypothetical date law right yes the state set out in a prescribed interest rate statutory interest rate let's take your hypothetical cash account that is sheets to the state of california under the unclaimed property law it was to receive a specific rate of interest while it's in use like that's a state law claim is it not you're on or that's a vested federal right to get interest from the controller right when i wasn't getting in a rest before the controller took the money the you unclaimed property law that we're looking at makes no distinction between these types of property your honor i that rate of interest that's applied prospect of lee now what the state has done is they've come in and they've declared we will play pay zero interest which is fine going forward with your analogy on all property irrespective of source but now they've taken that zero interest rate and they plied it retroactively against all property your respect for your honor you took a simple example of a bank account that earns no interest what if i was to take a mr von g this is stock that was sold and in which he was earning far more than interesting had all kinds of other rights is the applying for the reasonable value of their assets it keep in mind the the state officials determining what they're going to pay out there are no guidelines there are no regulations so so unjust arbitrary unconscionable and something we don't like but i'm just trying to find out where the federal right is involved i mean if you take a look at taylor  little bit of time to respond to the other side ok thank you very much retrospective relief under the eleventh amendment interest is considered compensatory for the value of the time if you will of holding the a accounts you'd go back and see for an account which they had been there for ten years you would under the requirements of the state law if it were to be applied you would maybe get interest for five years and then plaintiffs are asking the federal court then to enjoin state officials for a violation of the state law as they read it but there's just no federal opportunity most of these plaintiffs have never lead such that the controller is holding their property and refuses to give it back and they were given an opportunity to allege that and they d not so that when one looks at the first amendment complaint and add to judge seabirds decision you have to say this is a different situation from the one that was  yes but when one looks at the specific claims that these individual plaintiffs made they don't claim that the controller has their property and research refusing to give it back and that pleading injury sufficient to entitle them to prospect of relief and that's a very important difference should we and then stand back and allow them to a man well they've been given an opportunity to amend correct that's correct so that if they could amend to say that the controller was holding their property and refused to give it back one would think they would have done that whether or not taylor had been just  still yes i agree your honor and frankly sometimes when one gets a complaint like this it's too much and it's impossible to to be able to to sort out what the complaint state official that was another one of judge kleinfeld key points when discussing the eleventh amendment issue secondly i can get the cite for the illinois supreme court that discusses the same issue to you i don't have it with me it relied on the web taylor versus seaver decisions of the taylor decision was decided by the eastern district court what the controller simply did was come in to come front of commissioner mitchell and said this this is this issue has been decided by the eastern district and taylor here is the decision and commissioner mitchell look at that decision he followed it or essentially fall the reasoning of the eastern district court so there wasn't an in depth analysis of this complaint