asking this court to overturn the decision of the district court which denied mr oft all absolute immunity or qualified immunity director after all is given authority under south dakota law regarding money lending licenses money lending licenses businesses that do title longs payday loans signature type loans have to go through an application process in south dakota and mr afterall is provided the authority to address those money lending licenses under chapter fifty four dollars for in two thousand and ten dollars loan center applied for money lending license on that application is one of the questions asked is do you do short term loans short term loans or loans or for a period a term six months or less in that application they marked no subsequently in the newly renewables the application is very similar instead of new it's marked renewal and the same question is asked do you do short term loans less than six months answer is no laughter renewals were november two thousand and sixteen and june two thousand and seventeen pardon me on the last two renewals were those da he allowed to service loans originating prior to november two thousand and sixteen if all of their prior happened if all of their applications had been no short term loans well in order to give that context to answer your place as i stand here i believe the statute was effective immediately upon the passage of the initiated measure i may just be stand corrected were not were not valid or war no they were not they could still be service everything after the statute was correct they still could be serviced because that was a contractual agreement that was valid prior to november t but there could be no new one year loan there could be known no loans originated that had more than a thirty six percent a p r now most of if not all of the current dollar loan centers loans prior to november th seen were nuns that carried upwards of three hundred percent annual percentage rate or grady greater and that is what initiated measure twenty one dollars did was stop salt in effectively the new the existing one product for dollar on center was illegal they could continue to do loans but they could not do loans if those loans were more than thirty six percent per annum in june a two thousand and seventeen dollars loan center advised that the the division that we have a new signature lo here and they provided the template and the division council took a look at it and says we have some concerns and then nurse a discussion back in for now in july one tw requirement under state law forget the constitution for a summary this is the due process requirement the summary of the summary order can be issued under state law and within that order the issuing authority must indicate that there is an emergency and then there is and within the order and then that emergency then they're given notice t the courts have never said that you have to have a previous revocation hearing every time in this case our position is is that it was necessary for the director to take quick action to address the issues that were going on in this case but didn't didn't he backtrack didn't your client backtrack within days a couple of weeks and pulled back on that what you're calling now quick action to revoke i don't know if i caught backtrack what he did was issue a limited stay and under that limited stay the cease and desist still continued and that investigation there were there was exchange between counsel for dollar loan center there is exchange of information product there was a target examination in july but at that time that only flexible pretty depravation requirement can be satisfied by that sort of that sort of investigation back in court but it's not that investigation that back and forth in this case he all kinds of e going through this process rely upon the quick action exception to a free revocation though if you don't if you don't meet that you lose no i don't i don't think if we don't meet that we lose we still have we still have the qualified immunity and we know you have the unity and the supreme court ever talked about a quick actually action pardon me when is the us supreme court ever talked about and it's multiple multitudinous procedural due process does it ever talk about a quick action exception well  the us supreme court in the i caught holder of virginia surface mining indicated that if there are circumstances where the a due process or the actual hearing pretty revocation hearing is not necessary if it is in interest of the public health welfare and safety of the citizens and the person who is engaging in that quick action has the authority to do confused you're making some claim that there's a public safety public interest exception for the due process requirements you're asking for absolute immunity i mean immunity  or qualified immunity based on a theory of cause i judicial action and i keep looking at this thing and so far you haven't told me as to what the perceived lawful basis was for your client to act using this process ok and so what i'm trying to figure out i mean merely because you're acting in a cause i judicial manner doesn't afford you like a free reign to just ignore  judicial processes right i mean so you still have to have some sort of lawful framework that you're operating under and i'm set what was his perceived lawful basis for acting in the manner and using the process that he did the the he's given power to do revocations now in this case he did findings of fact conclusions of law and in those findings of fact and conclusions of law he express the findings concerning the lack of a short term licensing into the application that there was subterfuge to to avoid the thirty six percent cap and that when the all of that you know the facts i think we're well familiar with because you laid out your brief i think the real issue at least and i'm struggling with this is the idea that you know i can see where there's a public necessity or safety requirement to issue this cease and desist order stop doing what you're doing stand a place don't issue anything more don't collect any more fees or interested till we have a chance to act in a more difficult time finding some basis for issuing a pre notice revocation of a license and so under what kind of legal theory process claim the question is what processes do and by labeling it quick action what in terms of the whole and other cases is there's quick action that is necessary to protect the public health and welfare and you can do that under the africa bill law sorry long as you have an adequate post revocation process that's why doesn't the why doesn't the thief and assist in the system order procedure provide you that safety that you're concerned about with quick action everything and then the state was put into place now the process and the district court judge in the in the absolute immunity analysis i find most interesting if he had stopped there then we probably wouldn't be having a problem he patted be entitled to absolute immunity but the district court said as he went one step too far and that was a revocation well  they put they put all the information together and then he's presented with that information and he goes through it and through that process makes the finds of fact and conclusions of law he was not involved in the investigation may please the court mr morse i'm here today on behalf of dollars on center of south dakota l l c this case concerns a clear violation of dollar loans right to procedural due process on september th two thousand you came across our two thousand and sixteen decision in ky st as adams i'm not familiar with that your honor and you can answer my question how in the world can the district court's decision be square when they're my opinion that said there was no procedural due process violation or judge kelly's concurrence said there was qualified immunity because of procedural due process intricacies or were not clearly establish response to that your honor would be that in this case we didn't even know the nature of the allegations fully what we understood was that they were questioning our our loan product there was never any mention of this issue with the short term lending and that would mean that this whole issue is premature because you're still it again in the post that provision procedures in state court right we are actually the united serve the south dakota supreme court and frankly why we're here i mean i understand the qualified immunity and that's appealed all the time whether it should be or not but i don't understand from your perspective why this doesn't play out in state court you don't have to satisfy cleburne and it is still being litigated i agree with that it is still being litigated in the sense that we have not had the hearing that we should have had in the st place we have never had a  hearing in stake in the state administer through the state administrative procedures act if you are i think the issue here is that you have the director of the division of banking essentially ignoring the entire scheme for revoking a license and fast forwarding to rip to revocation without proper notice or hearing and there are a number of measures built into south dakota law that are designed to ensure that a license given notice and hearing before revocation can occur they're virtually irrelevant the federal procedural due process well i think there are going to be as a practical matter there has to be adequate notice and an opportunity to respond maybe a hearing pending on the circumstances but it's all at you give me a preview give me an a circuit or u s supreme court case where where pretty depravation process that was contentious or questionable was not afforded qualified immunity because on the clearly is the under the recent supreme court clearly established case i don't know of any thirty years old and has absolutely no analysis of the supreme court clearly established your prudence in the last ten years well that may be the case but i think it also clearly states  your honor and that i understand your position on the requirements of state law but i think the significance that's there as it relates to the issues before the court goes to the absolute immunity analysis and you know you know that's where the freeman versus blair discussion comes in about essentially the executive officer skewing all the responsibilities of his office and proceeding with a replicator in that case a summary suspension well here it was a summary revocation something that's not even authorized by law and it was it was done without providing notice or hearing  you know this was not something that was closely related to the just fine purposes of absolute immunity it's not merely a case of an executive branch officer exercising discretion this was an executive branch  know that there was in freeman there was a notation to that case as for the proposition that licensees are entitled to a creed operation hearing the word bell does not appear in your brief absolute immunity is appropriate when officials functions are similar to those involved in the judicial process i think that your opponent has tried to argue that in fact this was an adjudicator decision and  investigative or administrative call basically saying what they had in banking jammers and investigators and such why is he wrong on that as well because this is nothing like an adjudicative decision making process this was a director after all took a report prepared by his employees and used its contents to prepare a revocation order there's no hearing there i understand there was correspondence back and forth at no point during the series of that correspondence was dollar loan advised of the precise nature of the allegations against it we get a letter in early july or excuse me the end of june somewhere in that timeframe that basically says you know we might have some issues with this under our new law now of course what's neglected what we haven't talked about today is the fact that in the two thousand and seventeen legislative session they also added a provision that said you know you can charge late fees without running afoul of this provision on subterfuge and essentially creating an extra large interest figure on these loans so there's a statute that authorized what dollar loan was trying to do now in the months that followed from july and august we had the two investigations done a dollar loan centers operation at no point during those investigations was dollar loan advised hey we think you know this loan product is exceeding the thirty six percent cap at no point during those proceedings was dollar loan advised hey you guys aren't you guys are offering short term loans and here were quasi judicial immunity right i don't think what i'm describing is a failure to follow procedures i think what i'm describing is a lack of notice you know and there is a provision under south dakota law that requires mr after all to specifically advise us how we're violating the law and why we are subject to revocation i'm struggling with the difference between just failing to do it properly which we wouldn't strip someone of absolute immunity and acting completely outside of the authority are you are you relying on the latter that after all acted completely outside of his cause i judicial authority that's correct all right so you're conceding that if he had been merely in error that he would be clothed with immunity i don't know that that's correct because i think that there's there's been a modeling of the concepts of judicial immunity and cause i judicial immunity and i think the cases that have been cited by mr after all tend to go to the former and i don't know that i think there's a difference here and you have to look at the function that the officer is performing and here the function that was performed by mr after all bore no semblance to a judicial proceeding i mean it was a it was a situation where he basically relied on his employer to go out do the investigation and he took that information put it into a revocation order and we were out of business what is your understanding of his authority generally speaking with all of this that posing coun listed licensing licensing investigations cease and desist orders revocations what is your understanding of off dolls authority well make no mistake i understand what south dakota statutes say i mean i understand that they say that when he's looking at the revocation of a license that's because i do dish will however when you look at what actually happened here that's not cause i do dish will and that's the argument we're making is that this is not someone acting in a quasi judicial fashion fashion so you are saying that often all in his position is entitled to cause i judicial absolute immunity except here he stepped out of that completely but otherwise he would get it in this process i don't know i mean that that's entirely hypothetical given what we have here but i i don't know that he would be entitled to it without following the requirements of  law well is is that contrary to the whole concept of judicial immunity if you followed the law and followed all the rules you would have no need for munity right i mean because then they have there would be well you've got to appeal to the ordinary a ministry of practice and then appeal through the court system and you'd be insult to kota fighting about the process there right i mean that would not be concerned about judicial nudity in those in those circumstances right and if so there's got to be something where there's a difference between merely b and you know within the bell curve of of competence and going rogue because i think that's what your claim really is is you're claiming that whatever else happened in this case the director world i would agree with that assessment and i think it if you look at the statutory scheme and what he did here you just can't reconcile his actions with with federal procedural due process cases that mentions as a matter of law that this thing issued a time or twenty eight was not part of the pretty deprivation process i'm not sure i understand your question well it's an error reckonings when the when the issue is brought to attention with a lawsuit or in any other way eight a decision maker with the procedural due process obligations who have brought through yes or her pension that you haven't done enough and then state is that it did not correct the fact that we remained revoked you know dollar loan could have gone to a different loan products even with the cease and desist employer sacking cinematics were revoked but were allowed to continue business well i don't think we are talking semantics i mean the only thing we were entitled to do was service loans that existed before november two thousand and sixteen that hardly corrects an outright revocation of our living licenses that just investigators concluded is right which is a there was some there was even a breach of the representation that we don't do short term loan and b there were no loans originated after the passage of the new statute that we're not that we're not sure term we're not subject to that criticism mentioned continue to be sorry i don't understand other than the word revocation which i understand why it's so  that this was sprung upon us with no notice i mean we we we had this back and forth with the division during the course of their investigation in the next thing we know or or license was revoked i think that's the the due but that's not the that's the federal constitutional standard and would take a trial and work out everything everything that was sent back and forth and investigate it back and forth from the time it began to be concerned from the time of the announcement of the new package of law until the order and then the stay order that to me is the pretty deprivation process understand your position on those but those cases were fairly firm in the notion that any executive official would understand you don't just summarily suspend a business license without going through the proper channels spoke earlier about the whole dell vs surface mining and the quick action i did not cite at my brief but i did say keating versus nebraska public power district which was this court case in two thousand and nine the court clearly said an exception to the general rule that pretty deprivation notice and hearing is required exist when there's a need for quote quick action by the state when there is a public interest out of illegal loans is what led to the decision and action by the director and he set forth in those finding basis for that this was not an arbitrary kneejerk reaction it the the reasons for it are laid out and i want to address just briefly on the absolute immunity just told roll as a judge every time that he has to make a decision on what's go it was before him does he need to be worried about whether he's going to be sued and liable personally