three the city had contended that this was a problem motel the evidence as they showed in the administrative record was that the concentration of the city's position was in two thousand and seven the police officer  but different section of the organ stealing which short time not to rent the rooms actually i've read you know your briefs on this so let me ask you this it is i understand it and correct me if i'm wrong that the hotel has been out of operation since two operation all that time in fact they've been collecting tax with the city and the city has been excessive then what's the i don't understand what the debate well think they are operating without a license a business license and the city contends that and they have now in that court he extended over thirty four months couldn't you be making the same argument to state law arguments that your continued should be federal court in that abatement well my concern is and i think it's important to understand because i  amendment which clearly that they wanted to see if any of the issues in the mandamus action had precluded of effect because of the finding that that particular ordinance was unconstitutional on its face i think that was the action the state cause of action includes we are indicating both the administrative record federal issues the federal issue being the th amendment but i thought the th amendment issue has already been settled at this point and decide it isn't   your basis for federal jurisdiction is and i think it's supplemental jurisdiction i don't think you've ever argued that there is federal question jurisdiction over this state mandamus rid of man right ok so we're just we're going to wait and see how the federal claims turn out before we even turn to the state law questions and that was one of the questions i had is how much involvement as the district court had in the state law question so i think it's an administrative question so there's no had raised because if that's true then that's a federal question that's not something mental well i think one can argue but i think the way to get into pleading the way that it evolved is i have brought a forty t has refused to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and we have reversed them for abuse of discretion i couldn't find one well but the reason why the court here in united with a good case before the circuit court that instructed the district court to determine whether in fact in their finding that the particular ordinance in question was fifty one constitutional under the st amendment what impact it had on the supplemental jurisdiction amendment and what impact it had on the supplemental can you point it seems like there may be a variety of things the district court could have said about why it wasn't taking keeping supplemental jurisdiction over this case you may actually have a point that the district court didn't explain it very well but does it benefit you to send it back just for a better explanation well i think one issue here is once again what i indicated earlier i think one of the motivating factors by the panel in sending it back to the supreme court decision i don't i think the supreme court decided the th amendment question the supreme court i litigated the patella case and the supreme court found that these type of ordinances so but the panel specifically we want to know asked the district court should determine whether there is any effect on the administrative many cases where it sat plaintiff's complaint does not plead nothing well that's a different issue whether in fact the evidence supported a st amendment claim and i believe there is leading in the evidence and then i was going to get to that but but the point what i'm saying is you can if you briefs i mean you're making that the mandamus petition included a th amendment claim on the face of the pleading that we included a litany of different federal claims in the petition read a mandate of course the city claims we cannot please the st amendment on the face of court we would not be precluded to raise that in a state court proceeding we are now precluded from a or said about is his at his statement that the state writ of mandate doesn't really make a th amendment claim that's the it's that sentence and  and that's what the court of appeals asked i believe that he should have reinstated or we could have litigator did it in in his court but being that as it may as i said we are now prejudice because of the they were bound by that is seems very debatable so that's why well once again i'm not saying that he should i certainly have argued that he should have reinstated the klink but i'm saying that even given the way the panel was talking now good morning your honor is me please the court my name is alex brand i'm here a best western career and i'm here on behalf of the respondent city of long beach your honour's by this appeal appellant seek to force a district court to exercise such a matter jurisdiction over a purely state law claim when there is no basis in federal law to do so this court should affirm the district court's decision in order to protect the proper balance between the state and federal courts so it seems that your brief kind of implicitly acknowledges that there is a problem with the explanation that the district judge gave because the district judge seems to have thought that the refusal for supplemental jurisdiction was under one thousand three hundred and sixty seven c three but c three only applies when the original jurisdiction claims have all been dismissed and our court in trust doesn't count as a dismissal so it does seem like there is a problem in the district court's explanation of relying on c three do you agree with that i don't remember offhand if the district court directly rely if he specifically mentioned  jurisdiction because this is a supplemental jurisdiction question so but see to might be a basis for affirming on other grounds that that's correct on one thing i want to clarify just because there seem to be some confusion about what the th amendment claim was and then i will amendment is the april th violation later in the complaint this is paragraph thirty three dollars it's on page twelve of the record they state that the revocation of the business license violates numerous state and federal laws and then just disregard this potential kind of federal jurisdiction because it hasn't been addressed or those th minute violations your honor of the same violations that support as other federal claims and all those th mema violations were dismissed workers gives a set up the general rule then order for a court have supplemental jurisdiction and needs to arise out of the same set of facts and circumstances such that it makes sense for the two cases to be tried together and that's not what we have the th amendment cla principle i did your honor and i believe the reason why i can't find one is because the standard here is abuse of discretion and song last the court's decision for declining supplemental jurisdiction is a logical and beyond reason i just don't think this issue gets appeal often yet so like i was saying this is the th amendment claim is based on a legal seizure of business records the writ of mandate claim is based on the revocation of the business license these two issues focus on completely different sets of facts completely different sets of law and they can't even be tried to get in the same trial the th amendment issue will be tried to a jury the writ of mandy claim will have to have a completely separate trial with briefing and it's trying to the bench and an administrative hearing how invested was the district court on the state law questions because that i mean it seems to me that there's a stronger argument i don't know if it has to abuse of discretion but if a district court has been heavily involved in both federal and state law questions and then the federal question questions get dismissed that he should exercise supplemental jurisdiction here that doesn't seem like that's what happened here it seems like he treated them separately and he sort of pushed  off to the side but am i misreading that that is exactly correct or are in fact believe it's page for the supplemental record yes it's page four of the supplemental record submitted by the city previously in the district court case the parties have requested a briefing schedule this was in the very beginning of the case and in that instance the district court actually declined to set a briefing schedule for the writ of mandated issue specifically stating that the federal issue should be resolved before the before the rid of me was or discovery on the th amendment question i assume there was i believe there was or i was reserved i take it there was no discovery on the state law question because it you've got by the way the city's allowed them to operate without a business license for the last ten years no your honor it's been a very challenging process with them we've spent years taking less invasive foresman action again compliance with municipal code everything from just warnings asking them to comply to ministry citations to criminal citations it got to the point where the city couldn't tolerate any longer recently received an injunction to close the motel time bar at this point knowing i don't know the federal statute offhand but since this case has been pending for the entire time you think there is the tolling there is tolling if this court were to affirm the district court's decision they'll have thirty days from that date to file in state court and it seems like he is very upset about a sentence that the district court had in the ruling so do you care if that sentence is in the ruling i mean if we if if we say we're vacating but affirming and other grounds what th said we're getting rid of but we're going to give other rap grounds for dismissing this case would you be perfectly happy we are fine with that you're i believe our brief said numerous grounds to affirm the district court's decision so you're not wedded to this sentence about it about the writ of mandate not including the  amendment that he gave along the way in explaining the dismissal no your honor just because i know there's also seem to be this issue a federal question what i think the pound is trying to do is raise an issue that was discuss in gun v minton where the state claims have this imbedded federal issue the problem with that argument to the extent that's what the appellant is raising is that the issue has to be substantial to the federal system as a whole and this simply is not  the issue the ultimate issue was ultimately more point all we have here it's a patent litigation which is the exclusive jurisdiction of this court of the federal courts and even then that was not sufficient to give that federal jurisdiction here we have a minor th amendment issue if at all we don't even know what it is because it's not pled and to the extent it does exist it's merely evidence in support of the writ of mandy claim it provides no precedential about basically it's up to the state courts to decide the licensing rights the ultimate crux of the state law claim to be decided is a state law issue whether the business license was like of these ago you know i see my time is up i'd just like to see it there's no reason for this claim to be in federal court any longer there's no basis in federal law for it to be there i thank you for your time thank you thank you both sides for the arguments for your time so the case is submitted