complaint and her amended complaint and i also think it's very important for the court to consider the fact that the defendant's motion for summary judgment did not include initially any  was one to delay and we've had the opportunity to amend that complaint a number of times about we don't believe that the court considered all the factors this will be only a minute the complaint once and and brad reading oh it again by addressing some of the claims presented by alan here today at argument there was a suggestion at the top that the claim forms that are part of it he record should not be considered because they are new evidence that we're not attached as part of our initial motion for summary judgment judge jones addresses that in a footnote to his motion there is no obligation on my clients and to file another form saying the original filing is still valid and there's no authority that has been presented to this court of any such obligation so the foremost file in two thousand and one it was valid at the time it was filed another force fall in two thousand and seventeen because there was county fire district number one that territory merged with other territories and became south county fire so south counties are filed you provide a declaration from somebody who is responsible for maintaining the website you provided a screenshot you have lots of ways of doing has this could been resolved very simply but i don't know how you can come to force now and ask this court to take your word for it with the statute even if the claim form was not posted a letter could have been submitted an email sent to indicate this reimers intent to sue she didn't do so with regard to snow almost any artists are number one even if my client had not complied with the requirements of the statute and there's no evidence that my client did not miss rymer could have sent some writing in and there is case law that substantial compliance issue and none of those efforts were made turning that into the argument that my client should have disclosed the identity of the claim agents as part of their federal twenty six initial disclosure state law claims have been dismissed by judge jones in may of two thousand and eight they were not a part of this lawsuit when the initial disclosures were filed in march of two thousand and nineteen there was no reason his exact words in his order and we did not have a log claims at that time that we needed to respond to we had already successfully dismissed them and any additional ebbers to respond to the claims that have been dismissed would have caused even more delays than were already encountered in this case it's important also to note that miss reimers argument of substantial compliance with the statute applies only to the content of the for with the remaining time i have i'd like to discuss the a b a claim brought under the mistaken title the question here is reviewed or an abuse of discretion in this context there are three d whether they are left with a clear and firm conviction that the trial or committed an error of judgment and that should be viewed in the context of this case of action he gave her leave to amend that leave that amended complaint was filed in the mistake was not corrected there have been violations and delays at every stage of this litigation beginning before the lawsuit was filed with violation of the statue we've been discussing at the time the lawsuit was filed still rule or was violated because miss rymer did not properly serve claim on the parents we filed an answer that responded to the claims and deny the allegations across the board in our most and is being reviewed by this court alleged only that the wrong title treated the a d a s ball it were a title one without without correcting that is that is that in their complaint they cited the right statute they just cited the wrong title that's right in judge jones order tells them point blank that they sued under the wrong title and he gave them leave to amend it to correct the mistake in this rhyme or didn't do that in the published case law on this issue is very clear that you must sue under the correct title if your target is a public entity such as fire district so did judge jones make it clear error of judgment after granting leeway at three stages in this litigation litigation before deciding to dismiss the case that is the question for this court in th anything you argue that's right this is judge jones taking it upon himself to signal to miss rymer that she had not sued under the correct title wow that's pretty absurd that's pretty obscure  on the problem with the with the difference between the two titles has to do with a government suing a government entity versus suing a private entity there is one word in that paragraph about the difference between a public entity and a private entity that when he says this is not the correct action he's referring to the fact is reciting quietly he says it's nothing more than a formulaic recitation it's a signal that judge jones went out of his way to make to miss rymer it was not an issue