instead if we manage the case back here for your petition on that argument what the supreme court granted spurred on was the question quote whether the criteria under the fair housing act are different so that owners of officers of corporations supreme court did not answer the question that we raised in this case and that what is the effect of the real estate licensing laws on the application of traditional agency principles to liability under the fair ho discrimination laws although when a generic corporation with no sort of licensing involved when a corporate officer delegate a corporate duty to a corporate employee eat the corporate employee is performing the duty on behalf of the responsibility of assuring her of directing and controlling and assuring compliance of the corporations act with the real state laws including the supervision of the corporation's salesperson and what have a corporation being responsible for a light and kind of duty where your professional duty and that the way that the brokerage is supposed to operate is that he principles of vicarious liability when a statute imposes a personal duty on someone they may not just delegate that duty to anyone they are they're required to make sure that it's done themselves and if they do someone and to an agent and the agent commits a tort doesn't fulfill the duty they can be liable as a principle to third parties in this case we argue that the record shows that that's exactly what happened and that created an agency relationship between meyer and crank that was separate and apart from the agency relationship that that was in place between triad of the corporation and crank as the corporate employee responsibilities to crank to take care of that and that was a personal duty so because he delegated duty that was imposed by him on him personally under the licensing lie to crank and the discrimination discrimination of their sales people of the corporation salespeople and on the other hand the rule that the district court applied and what the defendant wishes to apply here is a matter of rule but as a matter of law they never to be liable and a corporation where the principle does not take away from the fact that there was also a principle relationship between crank and meyer so applying  supreme court the whether or not the corporate veil can be pierced our position and what we're not asking the court to rule on that we're just saying when we manage a case that's what we want to argue and we should be allowed to raise that argument because what over the organization and that they paid taxes trying to pay taxes under under myers tax id number that he had agency relationships with are these people they are reported to him that may not that may not arguing is that we should be allowed to go back to the district court and flesh out that argument because there are enough facts floating around in the record that that show that it alleged that it was known by the court and by the party that there were no assets in the corporation and that it was underfunded the only insurance policy  corporation to crank although there he admitted there were no documents that showed that i would say that would be a pretty egregious case of not observing corporate formalit a complete allegation and then as far as also one of the corporate veil issues is whether or not there is some sort of wrongdoing going on any personal responsibility of any responsible broker the corporation because template be the broker with the responsibility but here they have a requirement in fact it was an person i don't think that that would be in the best interests of corporate real estate licenses and i think that was the impetus behind the california legislation is you need to have a responsible person but it's important to remember that mr meyer does not hold an individual that sure as he is the officer broker then he would be the person responsible within the corporation for the supervision of the corporation's agents and and employees  responsibilities to another agent within the corporation does not create an agency relationship within the corporation we're dealing with a very small corporation but conceivably a large corporation where you have one designated officer broker but hundreds of by the california station association of realtors so much more practical to say that sure some of these duties for example overseeing the continuing education requirements have to be delegated to other people within the corporation person who is responsible to list group of the california and federal statues are carried out ok and that person is responsible thought the officer broker shall be responsible for the supervision and control of the activities conducted on behalf of the corporation by its officers and employees that's necessary full compliance with the provisions of this provision putting the supervision salespersons lanced license to the corporation in the performance of the act for which a real estate license is required for the key words there you are there acting on behalf of the corporation if you back up to the page before it says that he's responsible supreme for supervising the conduct of the employees complying with the law it isn't that just the corporation is responsible for complying with the law that would be what you're suggesting but here we between a personal and a corporate obligation there's nothing in there that says that the corporate office or broker is going to be personally liable for breaches of the fair housing act by a salesman or the purpose of the corporation is to insulate them from liability otherwise there would be nothing corporate licenses or corporate brokers like to do that they have this requirement and all the corporation is liable for what the corporation then you're either seen what's the point the part your honor is to ensure that there's someone there to supervise how do you ensure that if there's no responsibility that goes along with this there is there's a responsibility the corporation there's nothing in the that does not create an agency which is the issue that we're supposed to be exploring here's i'm not disputing that the office of broker has a duty to supervise and if they somehow do that negligently they could potentially are the only and i mean not maybe in the complaint but in any evidence that there is there's no insurance and that's the whole reason the evidence is that there's no insurance for the corporation and that's the whole reason for this la search for deep pockets in the manner in which their corporation was transferred to a crank that again would only go to whether or not there was a valid transfer our position is that he was not the owner still be the owner right we're not disputing for the purposes of this proceeding that he's the owner sole shareholder office or broker person the fact that he was trying to do that in that fashion as though he systems to review oversee and expect and manage one transactions were firing a license to documents that may have a material effect on the rights of obligations of parties to transactions maintenance of such document not every single office broker would have to be liable or be liable but in this specific situation he did delegate all his responsibilities to grow crank and he did relinquish that overall notice the entire case that we were attempting to pin liability on him personally and as an owner and so hearing on the motion to dismiss and there's a lot of discussion about the fact that he doesn't want to go to trial if if there's no assets and that we'd better find out there's