overfished case is notre dame affordable housing against chicago and just as a matter of information there will be a ten minute break between the th case and the th case m good morning to please the court my name is james hock innocent i represent the appellant's we are tackling with then a standing issue that i think was complicated by the record before the district court  my clients in filing a nd amended complaint were faced with a standing argument and i understand that standing is something that's never waived but in the underlying facts of the case my clients were never provided with proper notice of the destruction of the property which is what we allege in the complaint to mister avila hockey before yourself or you get too far into the merits can i ask you a jurisdictional question yes  the judgment that was entered in this case as i read it is a without prejudice dismissal right that's correct your honor ok ordinarily there's no finality for a purpose understand goes slightly to the merits of my point of raising that iran or is to mention the fact that my client found out about the property being destroyed on hold on behalf of we get into who found out about what are you we have a are you are you sure we have appellate jurisdiction here i believe we do because judgment was entered on the record several days or a day or so later some is dismissed without prejudice in ordinarily you cannot appeal that now here you have a separate you have a separate judgment entered and you have this notation that the civil case is terminated correct so defense was moving to dismiss they were asking a dismissal with prejudice and the way we looked at this is a fact the court was saying your clients don't have jurisdiction or twelve b one and i felt the facts of the case showed that sui felt  some better effort to show that the plaintiff has a property interest or is it just without prejudice to say litigating in state court which is not bound by article three of the constitution how do you read the without prejudice language that's an excellent question i it can be read two ways i believe that yes it could be i don't know how you read it i've already given you the two ways you can be read i read that it could have given us the opportunity to file in state court because it was without prejudice but i also believe because we argued with the facts that we did that we thought showed jurisdiction that the court was seeing this as a final judgment in effect because he gave us additional briefing on the jurisdictional issue so i felt judge nordell looked at the facts of the case what we paper that you include at the back of your blue brief did you think the case was over in the district court yes did you have any intent to go back to judge normal with i think what would have been  a rd amended complaint honor we believe that in responding to the motion to dismiss that we had alleged what we needed to allege to have survived the twelve the one which in part play a so all your evidence in other words all your evidence on title you put before judge normal and as we're talking right now in this oral argument you don't have in mind do you that it would be advantageous to have an opportunity to go back to the district court and file a  amended complaint i think it would be because since it we it would be in to the extent that i think judge in your goal did not recognize the issues that we were rais well where the city had signed my clients for the certain organs violations and then they put a lien on that property subject to that end number that applied  to notre dame affordable housing and then what we got to the nd round of briefing here their position was i never had the property in the present sense but don't mind the fact that we treated you as if you did the one in fact that i the provided the proper statutory notice to my client i think that would be damaging facts for the city because they can't have it both ways i would think in terms of ownership of the property if they're providing statutory notice didn't address it in a way that you agree with that he addressed it he did but he didn't say i don't think the issue of whether notice was provided to my clients was a fact that he considered i believe that my clients of today never received notice but mysteriously the city never bothered him he just charlotte and he says that look there's a lien there's been a lien put on the can because of some of these municipal notices that have been sent out but liens in municipal notices are not the way the title is transferred to real property so yes i recognize that point or honor my point was relative to the notice to demolish the property which is a separate issue that we have never seen any proof that the city did provide that to my clients as we why should they you fraud you're not owner or into the public records but the city believes that they were the owner of care what the city believe you are not a public right under a public record in the title search i understand the point they are roger but relative to what the city times are so if i were any citizens of turn to term and who own that property i would look your quit claim deed and look to the record and you're not  i recognize the transfer of title issue or your honor but the city has acted as if they were the title owners of the property up until the nd round of you know briefing and i believe that if the record we are able to show want you can't change that this city should we would have been able to perfect a title had the city taken the position that we didn't own it at the time at the study was attempting to mollify the building my client file the claim she was treated as if they were treated as if they were the property owners and then the city rejects the claim for whatever reason they seem to think you are actually the property owners of record that's in my client's understood at the time yes your honor well now that your client understood and i'm asking what you understood based on the way the city was operating towards my clients i understood that they were treating them as if they were the property owners whether the city made an error and that was just an expanding as judge caning is trying to inquire is whether you have any evidence that your client actually owns the property  or may not be making a mistake about that but to show that you own the property you have to show that your client owned the property do you have any such evidence we if we were sent back to the district court we have  a contact in this or singleton who was the person who provided the well indeed to us and he has indicated that he would provide the necessary documentation to show that he did have the rights provide that quit claim deed to us at the city's interpretation regard but he would be able to help to provide further evidence to the district court to show that he in fact did have rights such as the quitclaim to you and you need to do that before you bring the lawsuit indicated plaintiffs like standing they cannot challenge the general action of structures on the property if they had no interest in the property in response to that factional challenge plaintiffs that had the burden to show they did have standing bring a claim that they were unlawfully deprived of the property the district courts backplane in understanding it she was reviewed for clear error at the outset we believe plaintiffs have waived any argument that the court erred in assessing the evidence before it because they don't address the basis for the district court's ruling which was that mister singleton did not have that interest to convey to notre dame they don't explain why that was clearly e for that reason alone the judgment could be affirmed the decision was i said a correct it was a straightforward application of the requirement that a plaintiff must produce competent proof to provide a factual challenge to it standing here allegations in their complaint those are insufficient as you know i'm pleading the law and cannot establish federal jurisdiction plaintiffs argued that the defendants the interests player davis to challenge their standing but the defendant