whether the attorneys are here or not first is loud versus the state of arizona us position in this case that the lower court erred in its ruling denying the motion to compel her to very important reasons the first reason is because the court following the rules set forth in edelman versus jordan fail to apply t they're being sued in their individual capacities and which case the damages are against the individuals and then if they want to go on indemnification against the state they can do that but the actual lawsuit is against individuals and so obviously it wouldn't amendment however prescriptive really is and in this case and this is our second point the appellant is not requesting an award of damages simply prescriptive really an order coming only like a script of really if you're seeking a payment payment of money from the state across the board this court has the ability in equity in order to enforce its judgments and actually so we're asking the court to do is requires universe wanted to comply with the statutes which was created to benefit the victims of one thousand three hundred eighty three violations but you can you can get that benefit  here is the generally does not support the notion that a federal court has jurisdiction to compel payment pressuring but then we just support the contention that the state of arizona does not have the ability by virtue of the creation of a statute to claim that the eleventh amendment bars any sort of action have you tried to seek the relief you're after in state court and not at this point your why not i mean why are you wasting time in federal court when the eleventh amendment tells you you can't use the was the judgment of the state's only obligation would have been under a number of cation or something separate so they couldn't raise at that point an eleventh amendment objection because they weren't being made to pay you know take the judgment and you want the well your honor specifically and emory and it discussed a lot of different key facts and although one of the key facts that it brought up was the fact that the state of arizona by creation of the statute and that's the court basically saying that the state's going to have an obligation to pay within the ultimate result in judgment does not it does not say that the court is asserting any power over the state well let me read you something from them and if plaintiff prevails in a suit against the officials any stupid i him seeking to a force in forces a war against the state in federal court would be be faster and cheaper it seems to me if you have a legitimate judgment it would get you are in state court i mean i just don't understand how we got through the district court proceeding of the oral argument judge carol that's one of the specific questions that judge carroll asked the plaintiff counsel at the hearing on march seventeenth two thousand and three where you hear why don't you go to straight court and what would it take to enforce a judgment in state c is she needs to say to the state and them to find me correct that is correct and she's never said that in fact she says she's not a state employee and i realize that's not an issue before you and we have to accept the judgment as it is now you can't challenge collection of the award from the state because nancy ellison was not was not a state agency state energy actor how can you do that when you've got you've got a judgment a federal judgment have any notice of this at all was in the april of two thousand and two when mr lahman before he retrained counsel filed a notice of claim with their department of the ministration in arizona that's the first time we had any notice that they were the first time we had any notice from the plaintiff and we would at that time if they filed as of her court action to try to enforce the judgment we would raise those same defenses as we would be entitled to do so saying that's that's a matter of state law construing the