afternoon your honour's anthony casso for the pasadena republican club what we have here is the question of state action and it's in the context of what is very clearly a joint venture western justice center had an intent the city of pasadena had an intent neither one of them could accomplish their person their purpose without the part of the western justice center wanted to open a facility on this property that was owned by the federal government they did not qualify as an entity eligible to purchase they went to the city of pasadena the past the city of pasadena could only purchase it for a public purpose which is  outlined in the terms of the lease is a public purpose of dispute resolution and brain and all of these other entities into the city to work on the betterment of the administration of justice the city of know would not have done this without the city without the western justice and our participation wasn't just a center committed to fund the purchase price however the city was the one dollar that took out the loan with the federal government and eventually paid off that loan and later sold pawns to finance the refurbishment of the building that shows that the city's desire to have this project succeed is that the city put the taxpayers at risk even though it said that it did not want to put the general fund at risk for this so this is clearly a true joint participation a joint project  case it has to violate some provision of federal law but they are a state actor for purposes of federal law so you're saying just across the board not just with respect to this  board i'm trying to read try to recall that i mean if you look at the burton case burton was specifically focused on the action of discrimination so i mean obviously the midnight matter what happens whether the city has any knowledge or or any participation in a particular decision there it's there are still all state act similarly emberton your honor there is no indication that the parking authority had any knowledge of the business practices of the evil cafe where the court found fault with the parking authority is that they failed to include a nondiscrimination cos they didn't do that in their lease on south and therefore the supreme court held that they were jointly liable with the equal cafe so that the that's the court's ruling in that case it doesn't matter that the city did not know in this case what matters is that the city did not outlaw discrimination in its leasing agreements with the western justice when they gave them not at all your honor you hold that to hold that i have the eagle cafe front loaded as rent paid an amount in the beginning and then a minimal amount further on that that would absolve the parking authority of the joint participation in discrimination that's not the ruling of the court yet here we had the the purchase price was i think four hundred and fifty thousand dollars there was several one hundred thousand dollars and refer to spent that was from you know forwarded by the city of pasadena was later paid off by the western justice center so here we have instead of where is the eagle cafe was just pasadena is a very long term lease almost one hundred years however at the end of the lease the city receives back this historic structure which was one of their goals it's an appreciating a case obviously trade west was not operating the air force base they were doing maintenance and so there is no specific project involved as are was with burton and the parking garage  and so were in geneva towers with the specific with this particular building right the particular low low income apartment housing in order to make all of those cases work together which as you know judge gr noted that one panel can't overrule another panel so we have to find a way to harmonize all three cases well in vincennes you were dealing with a particular project as you were in geneva towers and as you were in in ross and because in rossum they didn't hold it had to have been indispensable to the entire city or to the entire governmental entity that just would make any sense but because investment you didn't have any particular project that they were  looking at these cases with cases of this court and supreme court require is that it's a fact beyond inquiry obviously as as judge been noted we have to look at the facts of each case and see how they how they  show that the energies actually work together what's important under rosten is that it says that burton remains good law which was sort of the keystone of western justice center's argument is that burton's an old case and therefore we can ignore it so looking at the cases if you do the fact and inquiry you do the careful sifting of the facts what you will see is that this project would not have gone forward if if it weren't for the fact that both parties really wanted it to happen they've both had to contribute to it and it's an ongoing relationship with the western justice center being put in the position as the manager of city own property and in that role they have the obligation the same way that the city of pasadena has the obligation whether it's during office hours or after office hours cook to conform the conduct to the constitution they stand in the shoes of the city as a manager of city property and if there are no more questions i will reserve the remainder of my time for both your honor you may do that the west and western justice center and judith carolyn may it please the court the supreme court of this court of repeatedly made plain that even extensive governmental funding and regulation of a private entity which are absent here  insufficient to establish governmental action for purposes of sued under section one hundred and eighty three now the club argues at length about public purpose but the supreme court has held that quote a private entity performs of function that would serve the public does not make its acts state action that's a rental baker case to we've held that the question is whether the function performed has been quote traditionally the exclusive parag of the of the state that principle has been reaffirmed over and over again by the united states supreme court and by the th circuit and there's no question here that the justice center  was not performing a quote traditional and exclusive province of of the state now of course the city sought to promote a public purpose when it leased the property to the justice center but that's almost always the case of public functions that constitute state action under this test the very short list nothing here even comes remotely close for this reason the club argued below and argued on appeal almost exclusively under the burden symbiotic relationship test but the supreme court and this court have repeatedly underscored that quote there's no there there can be no symbiotic relationship under think three when there's quote no showing that the government profited from the defendant's alleged constitutional violations it doesn't even matter whether it's the project or the entity as as  flowing from the alleged unconstitutional act and of course we have to remember this is section one hundred and three dollars which is concerned with acts that which themselves are undertaken allegedly under color of state law it's the acts that  that are allegedly unconstitutional which have to be the focus long relationship of landlord lessee between the city of pasadena and the western justice center simply can't be viewed as as policy that that the events in question were intended to and did carry out that would be one think there is nothing here and you know it's true that at the formation of the center there was a significant relationship with the city and acquiring the property which as the club acknowledges has been long since been paid back the club the center rather pays the city a dollar a month in rental fees there's no no allegation that the city had any and you do with the event in question that has any control or oversight over the after hour rentals of the maxwell house certainly there is no suggestion that the city financially profited much less an indispensable way from the  doing as well that it's very clear that you know the actions taken by private entities with the mere approval or acquiescence is not state action and here we don't even have knowledge alleged by on the part of the city has to be involved in one way or another with the allegedly an stu tional activities after all we're talking about act actions which have to be under themselves under i believe affirmatively stated by the defendant in that case that that was that that was in fact the case that the the restaurant's racially discriminatory policies were essential to its profitability which in turn was essential to the the parking authorities ability to have a a successful ongoing enterprise nothing like that is even remotely presen here if the court has no further questions i'm happy to submit you may do that and we'll hear now f i'll deal with questions that relate specifically to the city of pasadena and that may have been raised in the reply that i can address and in particular this was a summary judgment motion which was granted by judge the sheema and it was it was based on the absence of evidence to show any involvement in this decision making process by the western justice honor on the part of the city of pasadena and from a practical standpoint plaintiff's entire argument is trying to seek to impose liability against the city of again a without any evidence of showing a joint action or conspiracy or conduct that would meet the requirements of showing that the city of passerby and i had some city there has to be an l policy that shows that the policy was the quote moving force inflicting the constitutional violation on the plaintiff and so  entire focus of the plaintiff looking at the i guess the financing the structure that started the western justice center is kind of off base the focus needs to be whether there was control or delegation of authority by the city of pasadena to the western justice center and again the plaintiff seems to be arguing that there's the least that doesn't say anything about anti discrimination policies i is one of the main statements that the policy has to be the moving fours and that there has to be a direct causal link between the policy of the city and the judge seamus remarks where he made a point of distinguishing between the delegation of authority by the city to the western justice center through a  that challenge conduct is not fairly attributable to the city of pasadena here judge just noted that this was a transfer of a lease hold and under california law that takes the city out of it in terms of the rental of the property and therefore removes any liability there is no my n we have the more than that here we have we don't have any symbiotic control you know in particular our factual situation expressly eliminated landlord shall have no obligation in any manner whatsoever regarding of repairs so we have the opposite of what was presented and burton thank you very much thank you counsel and i believe you this property after hours no controls by the city whatsoever now the city claims that it wants to rest on the fact that it didn't have any knowledge that the western justice center would  authority to discriminate but that argument was disallowed completely by the u s supreme court in burton no state may effectively abdicated its responsibilities by either ignoring them or merely failing to discharge them beyond that the parking authority by its failure to include a nondiscrimination clause which the city included in other provisions of the lease but not in the after hours rental provision the failure to include that non discrimination clause subjected to the state the parking authority to joint liability with the cafe for the discrimination there is no allegation of burden that the state knew that the the e cafe was in fact discriminating or that the state knew any of the operational details of the eagle cafe here the council also brought up that in the cafe case the cafe said will lose money if we don't discriminate against black people here the email from the head of the western justice center says we will lose our our ability to do dispute resolution if we allow dr he's meant to speak in our facility is going to is going to blow our public reputation we won't be able to fulfill our public purpose of running this dispute resolution center which if you look at the the lease in the in the excerpt of record runs through with that that is the entire public purpose of purchasing this property refurbishing this property and allowing the western justice center to operate this property for nearly a century it was to have this public dispute  resolution noting that by moving a particular dispute resolution program already in existence at the time of the lease into the western justice center that there would be able to settle twice as many cases without the need to resort to litigation the lease itself knows that it's controlled by a plan of public he used for the property with very detailed uses that are permitted in what's not permitted on the property this was all for the public purposes of the city of pasadena and the private purposes of the western just center come together in this symbiotic relationship of joint or to the patient under burton and under rosten and under geneva