constitution and it's our position here that the constitution created the right to due process that we all know and that the federal regulations simply explain the scope of the due process with respect to the medicaid program and under agree your honor if there were a specific procedure set forth in a regulation and someone was trying to say that i just mirrors due process then we would be left with what that argument would be the next case the regulation it's also due process i mean i i can't imagine a situation where a federal regulation should not be entitled to be considered to be an enforceable right if this one can let's let's move on now because there are due process issues here if i may even assuming that the process of this group which is fundamental is notice at least notice to the party who you're taking three million dollars from why you're taking out three million dollars they took the three million dollars beginning in august  s i don't i didn't add it up that it's a long enough argument is that for them to hold it for seven months while they are finishing their audit report is a violation of due process my argument is the study even give notice of the reasons why client your honor ninety percent of its business was medical because it dealt with doctors groups who treated injured patients because they took all of the money the place couldn't operate they shut the place down we tried to get an the state processes but you also can come straight to federal court don't have to exhaust the administrative remedies if you've been deprived of due process here are assuming that the hearing was timely nine months to a year or whatever the the fact of the matter is they never gave the money back for three years you can't hold someone's money for three years that's why these regulations which are supposed to interpret due process and under the federal regulations they give examples of one year temporary is not three years where there's no allegation or meaningful allegation of fraud and it's a matter of fact eight months before they even tell you what the problem is when you get six months from any federal regulation there is the preamble they talk about one year i think the reasonable time at most for a withholding saying six months because in my opinion under the facts of this case when you're tak three million dollars from someone you should be able to figure out whether or not that's there's a legitimate basis for that within six months because there's a regulation there is your opinion that it ought to be six months but the regulation i think wins out over my opinion one year i w and we expect them to get special attention to people who treat high percentages of net a compilation so that's that's our position and anyone who can reach it alone that i mean it's i think it's more basic and i think people know you don't take money from not withhold money i don't know how any state official could think they could ever do this frankly and comply with any notion layman's notion or any notion of due process  so there was no violation of due process all of the case law that exist addressing this particular scenario and medicaid or medicare withholding has has  employees in the controller's office who has the right to determine whether a fraud investigation should and sue are not well the audit happens first and plain controller failed to give notice in a reasonable time and simply sat on this money for three years that could be tested can it not i mean it couldn't that be of  process violation no because any case law as it exists holds to the contrary that in fact well the investigation is ongoing and well legal legal proceedings are ongoing in the state  let stand the administrative decision holding that in fact the plaintiffs did over bell by over one million dollars and so now california if they able to get that money back will be entitled interest  one case it was a three month suspension not three years presley is right on point that existed at the time also the district court the first time around and this ninth circuit when it was reviewing the district court's decision the first time around i don't know how the district court reached that but if this is not a denial due process i can't think of a case that would be you know you've got interest on the two point two withheld yes so what are you asking for by way of damages beyond that well i think what we're trying to say is they forced this laboratory out of business and what was a valuable ongoing business became a business that was worth nothing they had to lay off all the employees and it was a complete business that's what happens if they do it the right way and due process given they would not have taken three million at most they might have taken a million and it would have been enough money to keep operating that was not enough money operating when you take all the money and don't tell the people why thank you very much