individuals when we offered evidence of significant and long lasting emotional and even physical crime that they suffered while they were employed at work which i know my time is short and i'm happy to start with either if you have the support has a preference if you don't have a preference primary consideration of the successor liability doctrine is doing sure that victims receive full relief for violations of their rights now this is a case that really cries out for the success or liability doctrine we have a station it's not dispositive that is the most important factor or one of the most important factors i agree that is important and critical but i think it is on a par with the other factor of great importance the facts that we actually show notice because those are within the purview of the purchaser and the successor of the company so we don't have all the lack of facts about notice when we come to court and file our complaint and i thought you allege flat out  is the person who is a registered agent and through them he had notice now the allegations as to s g i well just to clarify one thing for me in terms of the timeline was the federal court case pending when jai purchased the hotel no charges were filed the purchase occurred prior to our complaint ok and when you're talking about charges you're talking about the charges in the administrative established classical claim as to notice against jack i but i understand that your honor is having a little bit trouble coming along with me in that argument in our brief we said if you were to disagree that our complaint possibly alleges notice as opportunity to do it now you could have filed that motion you could have filed a rule sixty nine a rule sixty for leave to a man i'm not sure why we didn't do that below but to go back to the law so i'm  you have three minutes left and like to reserve that for revitalise do you have any other questions for me right now you haven't touched on the damages issue and i think we need to hear from you on a wise the damage award of thirty five thousand an abuse of discretion when you didn't why is it an abuse of discretion for the district court to award the thirty five thousand given that you didn't present that type about well respectfully that is not the reason the district court gave the low business need for the know spanish tallest respectfully both of those are firm justifications for the award here let me just highlight for you two people i know that my time's ticking reappoint was nineteen years old and she support that he should have given notice so job i work with to file a brief avi file a pre hearing brief mentioning it but judge kelly himself never warned us that he was going to reconsider it and we focused rightfully justifiably sir thank you please the court i'm paul fry i represent s g i l l c s g i is conceitedly an innocent party joined solely for the purpose of providing a pocket however shallow go straight to the rojas decision that everybody has cited which says quote it would be unjust to impose liability upon a successor for the mere purpose of an hansing the plaintiff's ability to collect the money that the entire doctrine a successor liability is predicated on there being a sudden change in the employment relationship of the aggrieved parties my client but this hotel seven years after every one of these allegedly aggrieved employees left the employment there was no sudden change there there couldn't have been a sudden change in converse lee my client couldn't have possibly benefited from the alleged discriminatory conduct of whitman and when you look at the the maid mellon case upon which trujillo is based probably on this appeal perhaps premature to address it the question is was notice including constructive notice properly alleged in series of but as a as a subsequent purchaser did you not have the ability and maybe even the requirement of due diligence to determine what the status of the predecessor owner was that his if there was outstanding lot of you know i think when we get to the merits if we if we never do get to have to get to the merits yes we have a responsibility to do adequate  reasonable due diligence and we did it with present did tell the intense go to constructive notice here that is what was your position what did you know how much time did you have for due diligence under your purchase contract and what did you do to satisfy you don't do diligence well the purchase contract i believe gave us thirty days of due diligence and during that time are our broker whose name is hasan was in touch with the broker for the seller and we investigated the property would you determine that it was being beverly mismanaged and run down and or broker ask their broker is there anything else about this property that we should know about any and stated liabilities and that broker told us no and that's in our supplemental appendix that we filed with the court but i think that's really not buyer there's a due diligence clause in the contract there's a search for the hotel on the internet why isn't that enough to particular search engine and a search for the name of a hotel that was not being purchased we were purchasing the el camino large we were but what the el camino lodged and the weapon in were both on the and i think it follows from the supreme court's decisions in wiley golden state and then the other cases that have been cited by the party brazil ski and ramirez and others that say there's also an interest in people being able to organize their business affairs without having go and having to go through a needle in a haystack due diligence process and by requiring us to go to you know a federal district court state court every court in the country to see if there's a claim out there is unreasonable we have a right to to rely on an app out of court in new mexico well the same i think it's the know we have in this complaint has regard to your client and a lot of allegations as to the sale and what you did and what you didn't do what your what your president sat and did he was in a hurry to buy because  price was really low and wouldn't that fact the price that was really low wouldn't that sort of set off alarm bells in most people's minds say what's the deal here i better check this out well in our case  harper testified that the low price could have been explained by a number of things the main one being the rundown condition of the property and he acknowledged that in hindsight it could have been  this lawsuit if i may go through the other two concessions there key the rd the nd concession we state that every allegation made on information and belief ought to have at least one underlying fact in there and for all of these allegations on information and belief what they do is they simply have a formulaic recitation of these factors no u nderlying facts except for in the part alleging notice there's not a not a word of protest to that argument that we've made only that on we we  supplied a whole lot of facts and of course the court can determine whether those are really facts or if they're formulaic recitations rd concession is that e l c cannot rely in this court on new facts or red flags or whatever they want to call these things that were not pled and walrus absolutely dispositive on that point i see my time's up and i know that mr rogers has a lot of  you did not hear much of an argument today nor does a brief contain anything for slay says argument that there's been a clear abuse of discretion and if you spend time on the evidence presented with regard to damages you will be struck with i believe a close look is nothing except e e o c excesses particularly with the expert witnesses when you compare the affidavit into the mouths of these aggrieved women's i'd like to i'd like to emphasize the timeline i think that's been mentioned but it needs to be emphasized from the very beginning in two thousand and nine when officer vehicle attended a meeting of the aggrieved parties at the invitation of the parties and he witnessed the most undeniable insubordination and vulgar offenses possible  just ask you are you still addressing the damages as you act i can't address the damages issue i thought you started out with that maybe i misunderstood what you were offered to settle judge kelly did not indicate what the basis of his decision was in that well ok well that leads to my next question how can we meaningfully review the damage award if he didn't articulate the basis for the award my brief review of the e e o c see decisions reported decisions concerning damages indicate an incredible wider array and an incredible amount of discretion to the trial court judge i think that i'm not and i understand that but the r c is saying that the ward was unreasonably low level concerning the reward i think there is significant evidence that there are no damages and there the entire claim of damages is is bogus and i think you can do that by reviewing from the beginning officer veals account of this this whole matter as well as what happened with the expert witness if you review the expert witness statements and how that report was assembled given to understand overreaching in the extreme with regard to what happened there in the presentation was handed rationale that the district court used and entering a thirty five thousand dollars judgment your honor i would be i would be  mistaken to speculate about the about the details of judge kelly's reasoning and also we have as the report but more importantly you've got a standard that the government has not remotely but i don't understand that that that the there is no e e o c presentation is the damages that make sense at any other number not because their evidence is simply pulled out of  and twenty nine thing your honor i believe we're talking about damages the damage calculation is an equitable fairness calculation and not that one of them is just about liability pardon you can have damages about liability i thought no your honor and and that does not preclude the court of the court is the court must consider a wide variety of factors in setting them which is sent in one of them  testimony from that very st meeting in which the officer invited by the aggrieved parties testified deposition you know i believe my time is up may i may i finish go ahead and if if you look at this time line if you look at the time go i mean that in the length of time the e e o c has sat on this and waited delayed and not addressed any of this and you compare the affidavit and ten to the affidavits presented to the court any rational court any district court judge looking at that is gone going to come to the conclusion that testimony about damages i all three of you this morning for your arguments the cases submitted thank you