today to ask this court to reverse the grant of summary judgment by the district court which we believe was erroneous on a number of grounds which are set out in the brief we do agree with the district court that this is the first time this circuit the seven seventy which is forty two us code forty six i wonder whether this court has not addressed whether the you are it gives rise to a private right of action to enforce provisions that particularly one preparation which is forty six fifty four c which mandates that a party be a property owner who succeeds whether in a condemnation or in verse condemnation matter whether it's gone to trial and a contested hearing or settle  as a right shall be awarded their reasonable costs attorney's fees which were actually expended i have to tell you mr johnston the thing that baffles me and now this is one of the things about th appeal is why we even have any reason to reach that issue this matter was fully litigated in the state courts wisconsin unlike most states recognizes claim preclusion and it uses a transactional approach to what amounts to a claim and so anything that either was raised or could have been raised in the state court is now decided the federal court under section seven hundred thirty eight has to give the same point twenty eight and you also you are asserting there is somehow a supplemental right under the you are a but that doesn't make them different claims well your honor the supplemental right if it's never first of all of the property owner is never notified legal expenses greater than thirty one thousand were reasonable and the state court held not well the federal statute even if there is a private right of action limits recovery to reasonable expense so why is this claim statute talks about reasonable expenses yes i'm going to state court held that expense in excess of thirty one thousand were not reasonable my question is why that is not covered by  same issue and state court decided for purposes of state law the thirty one thousand some dollars was the reasonable amount that could be awarded under this statute typical issue preclusion means that that issue we don't even have a non reciprocal situation here we have both parties involved in both cases and that finding a fact is now binding as between those two party and current lodestar the court's going to look and see is the fee charged a reasonable fee might take evidence on that that didn't seem to be a problem you're reading state court's opinion but the other thing the state court or any court would look like look at here is did that that's a pretty generous thing actually for the amount of money that wound up changing hands well your honor the case and i was not in the underlying case in the trial court although my opposing counsel was it has you are you which is to make whole and the wisconsin statute thirty to twenty eight includes language that you can have additional payments issue of additional payments was never to make them whole and consideration of the lodestar and why we're going to maybe a little bit less your age too much not the principles of claim in your preclusion and not because they do exist precisely for this sort of situation so that people don't shave up their their grievances with others and busy quite a few courts with functionally the same case that's why i stress that wisconsin at least as far as i understand it follows what we call the the modern trend which is the transactional approach we are on i would again still maintain my position this is much again and i do a lot of employment law for both sides as well if you there is no release there is no going forward with this settlement that we breathe covers any and all claims or waiver you are a's not mentioned wasn't considered by the state court it would be like if you had an age discrimination act potential claim but you settled the case but in the end include that statute or some others in the release you haven't given up those claims under it and those claims we believe still exist despite the fact that the state court dealt only with the award of attorney only under state law and didn't consider at all the impact of the you are right and i'll reserve get a major for my  i feel the court very appropriately and the questions are asked counsel for mr de coster i do think i should point out that it's my understanding based on do that i just don't think this court has specifically addressed whether section one thousand nine hundred ninety i don't think it can if there is no private cause action but i just wanted shouldn't courts wisconsin agencies are required to look into the uniform act band that payments should be made to the stamped necessary if they are not satisfied normal provisions of wisconsin condemnation law that section thirty two point one of the wisconsin statutes subsection three d i cannot accept the position  taken by the plaintiff here that his client should have been and wrongfully was not advised of the fact that he might have been able to claim make a claim under the uniform act i know of no obligation a displaced person or any kind of relocation benefits of any nature all of which are provide good news i mean they talk about five thousand square feet and then i saw one thousand two hundred honor i think if you look at the current definitions regarding litigation expenses attorneys fees appraisals beast things of that nature there are very similar in wisconsin locke to what we have in federal law also wisconsin follows the law lodestar analysis when it comes to determining reasonable return to the street that's precisely the analysis followed by the federal courts and many other state courts which concentrate took time so to speak that large follows that law that i don't think a federal court would do anything different from what the state court did here in terms of looking to in analyzing what is reasonable i often get the impression of looking that he thinks that he's entitled to not just a reasonable fees but all of his actual fees it is a complaint as i didn't get all my things like money right now clearly he didn't that there's no doubt about that i thought wiscons obtain federal financial assistance that i think was the purpose of the law i think the legislative history backs that up we don't have this here wisconsin i think  similar grounds for review by the federal courts this is why i also think the work of feldman doctor applies here because it makes the federal court basically an appellate court for purposes of  compensate her if she was confident yes and it compensated outside of the stipulation that wasn't part of the determination made by the state court who wasn't looking to the the amount of fair cop compensation for the property and i think as i recall your bases and such were paid to outside of the stipulation stipulation was solely addressed to litigation expenses and the parties by its terms agreed that the state court would make that determination often the brief so the up telling here say that the county  refused to grant him his rights to litigation expenses at the county never agree that it would except without question everything he claimed for attorneys fees or other litigation expenses in response to me or some comments of mr bruce again who was on the scene at the time of the trial and like myself the status of whether mr de coster was a displaced person or not is not a requirement and i've cited the bonanza case for the land and the right away as well as some ditch improvements that occurred afterwards or judge would ask about would there be any reasonable chance the court may have awarded more whether that had the you are a bit before the state court or before the federal court and we have been knocked out on summary judgment and my answer would be yes because the state court or i think reasons that it didn't not at all consider the congressional inten madison law firm who represented him that but that happened and that sometimes does and he was asking for a reasonable compensation so bad he would have those expenses and fees paid for and clearly a three quarter card doesn't not apply in the lodestar calculus i think that was done by the state court i would say with discretion under the state law but i think that discretion would have been much more limited given the congressional intent had the u r a been before  finally run it judge would mention about the full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue was there an opportunity theoretically yes it was never brought up so nothing  by council so it did not happen was not waived in the settlement agreement but i think the jones case that i discuss in my reply brief and talk about a due process problem and given that little wiggle room or possibly getting back to it is not the whole or have reasonable fees and costs reimbursed and the you are a does not contain any kind of enforcement mechanism that's intended by con congress to be exclusive there is no enforcement mechanism for a state or local allow a sliver of a an opportunity for mr custer go back before the district court and prove up his right to feel should have been awarded in the first all right thank you very much thanks to both counsel take the case under advi