thank you good morning we appreciate council being here today whatever means necessary you know and video and we're ready to hear arguments in the case of balanc onset of our argument we would like to focus on what this case is really about in federal court from our perspective in a lot of the city for anything but the both the central prepaying and some of the other issues that that if out a priest a number of ancillary issues have been injected that would really be for the district court to deal with on remand so at the onset we would like to  again focus the court on the notion that this is about the simple d issue of whether judge knowledge should have a thing or ground and in that contact and in our case with the federal district cour we are not and we're not taking any issue whatsoever with the city's ordinance that all four in the federal court with the application of that word now are issue rather can go forward here in district court if we determine that the whole issue of the permit in the st instance is is not right  there's a sort of a two step dispute resolution process here per the part of the easement st bards men who ruled against you and i understand that is not binding but then the nd step is arbitration where does that stand the arbitration there's there's a two part answer to that the arbitration has finished now there is a final award an arbitration and there will be a confirmation proceeding in a court on the arbitration when the courts open in north carolina again the arbitration awarded was inconclusive and did not answer any of the questions that was that he would have needed answered in order to properly and to properly issue the permit but as we indicated in our in our you go on he said it was inconclusive so the harvest ration did not result in issuing the permit one way or the other so it's important your honor to distinguish there's a perm process with the city and then there's an arbitration process which is a separate and to some degree unrelated process that occurs between be v p and it's not a party called a s t r a and so our issue has nothing to do with the party convert office a on its property in a way that would increase the demand for parking spaces on the v p parking deck and that has the court doesn't need for there to be a result in the arbitration your client doesn't own those parking spaces anymore right so when are you if your position here that you only have the procedural claim left the claims about being excluded from the moaning  process the permitting process and you understand that your you are your prospective relief or class would be moot because your client no longer ng you've mentioned the one point five one million number a law issue and and is that is that what you can t and your damages  from the procedural violations yes ron ok and how if the city's permit is spots in the city isn't making the determination over whether or not you're entitled to those faces or  traceable to the outcome of the litigation you have with a s v p a a s v r l f and the city's permeating decision yeah i realize you wanted it to wait until it was resolved that even though it went forward it appears to be conditional and i didn't see the city ever determining whether you know you have the rights of the spaces or the other party to the arbitration so how was those losses which i understand those losses how were those traceable to the city if it isn't making that decision but that decision is the result of an arbitra and it's hard to do in this phone and i'm sorry but i i have i've read about that and i appreciate your argument that there were things that you believe the permit violated two to follow ups aside from the traceability issue that that i mentioned if the you prevail on the litigation that stems from the arbitration i don't know that we can prevail on the litigation that stems from the arbitration at this point because the arbitration award is so poorly drafted in a clear i don't know that the arbitration or get any party in this case anywhere because all the arbitration award does then the matter back to the city and so the answer to that is i don't see as a i'm sorry so let me let me then follow up with that because that i kind of i think i understand where you're going with that if the perceived done certain the about that award means that the city has to make some determination you know then then i wonder whether you know your right to relief against the city would maybe exist if it then make some determination about the rights to the parking spaces in response to that you know as you characterize a big u s arbitration award but i'm still having trouble right now understanding where the city has made any determination yet about the parking spaces other than of course issuing the permit conditional in a conditional along with what you've been talking about though isn't don't you currently have an appeal in front of the the board of zoning appeals about this permit so why should we interject ourselves in the middle of the state you've you don't think you're going to get much process out of the to be easy a appeal but it seems like rightness would require you to at least go through that step before you are then allowed to bring your claim to us so that we know as a final matter what the state position and what the city's position is sorry rather than stepping in in the middle to tell the city how to it will my going to a council sorry this is just rushing i guess my point is just you speculate that you won't get a fair shake and that might be true but it seems like we don't have that in front of us until there's actually a decision from the b c a that it's it's not ripe until we see what they do and you don't have to you know it's not as though you lose any rights you still have all of your rights but you form of losing and of resolution on this issue for nearly a year and a half now and being denied the same process that any other party would get and those damages  determination about parking spaces at this time the city's position has been one and the v p as well as we are our resolve the issue of the cos he's in agreement then we can apply the actual orders to that matter as the letter that have agreed to on grade two language that clearly states that they are proceeding at their own risk in regards to anything related to the renovation project as such if they were to actually redo the years space into a new office area and the trial judge here in spain or or the subsequent state courts were to agree with the b p the city with then have an obligation to not only revoke the permit but also make a a counsel indicated that the arbitration award is unclear or inconclusive or something along those lines what is your view of the arbitration award and how it may impact what's going war but valentine village parking as well as the state preceded by a as there isn't here and tension between both parties as to the contents and finale of the arbitration or as such does that he's not taking a position one way or the other really that may that may affect the rightness doctrine but in terms of what is to happen at least with the permeating process it some point will the city be presented with the results of the arbitration and have to make a decision on whether or not to make the and make the permit can do permit as opposed to conditional is that something that is a event that will happen in the future we would actually say in this instance that  the process between valentine village parking and he is the arrest needs to be undisputed and unimpeded was not regard if you're asking the city of charlotte to interpret even claims process that these two individuals contractually obligated themselves to being application before you and you either have to say it's some point the i'm asking this i'm not telling you you know it better than they it's some point you have to say whether we're going to issue the permit without strings or aware that conditions or not i would i would think so doesn't the city virtue of its permitting process at some point have to make a determination about whether a s v r off has you know sufficient rights to the parking spaces we will not make that determination now we believe that without a doubt that if your understands and acknowledges that they're proceeding at their own risk and do not have a vested interest in this regard well the problem comes into play if your were to litigate this matter with the city of charlotte what the city has unequivocally stated in this regard has been at the issuance of the zoning permit is conditional on any on award allowing a s b r f to have the actual parking spaces on the property not really give the city cleared its answer as to who is ripe who is wrong and whether or not the permit is or is not valid at this time the issuance of that permit back at that time was only condition upon a final determination about how we deal with rightness on jurisdictional and if we have if hypothetically if we don't have jurisdiction how could we make a determination that the district court what you suggested that we make a determination that the judge was wrong in applying burford and if we don't have jurisdiction you know whether we decide that now or whether we remain and it how could we make a determination on whether the of stenson decision was right or all well then my adjusted approach judge would be would make to remand with some instruction for judge mullen on the burford issue should he decide that this case is right and that the parties can proceed in the district court because one of the issues in this and it ties into a number of the points  being reset is now till the next argument