unless it is clear that the complaint could not be saved by an amendment this court and send a loud and clear message to the district court that without some specific findings that there is a reason not to allow leave amend that leave two men should be granted particularly in a case like this this is a little one of the principal clues some of the principal claims are employment discrimination cases where you're given a ninety day right to sue  letter from the e e o c or the state agency and in this particular case it took four and a half months to get a decision on the motion to dismiss it by that time even though the court dismissed it without prejudice it's too late to bring it back the court dismissed it without prejudice and a judgment that day and were left with no option but to come to this court to seek relief when if the district court had merely provided leave to amend the issues that the this record seemed to find it no problems with just records you to find with the pleading could have been corrected by amendment specifically the district court's order and this is excerpts record pages eight and nine fault of the plaintiff are not alleging specific leave to amend the case and bring forth the information that the court is finding lacking here there's been some suggestion in the briefing that a specific motion needed to be filed i don't think that that's other there were two cases cited by the district court there were unpublished orders from the supreme court in about a neither of those take up the issue both of them are are basically handled under other grounds they were very brief and fleeting day after day and having her perspective economic interest interfered with by these defendants in their conspiracies with alleged you know with a conspiracy to interfere with what you're doing here is wrong that's illegal you shouldn't be doing this to me she had lawyers writing letters she had her superiors in the district attorney's office telling them that they needed to stop doing this and they continually refused to do it so if those requests are made property and you tell them to stop i don't think it's fair for them to say well you didn't tell me to stop within the structure limitations period so now i can just be on your property it's a continuing ongoing tort every day lambertson and my colleague here from the nevada attorney general's office is here representing defendant grierson we have decided to divide up our time based on the federal claims which run to clark county which i will argue and the state claims which will run to the individual defendants which my colleague mr ireland will argue and with that i want to address just a couple things that my colleague mr  raised in his argument about think it in particular the hope the holding there is not quite as cut and dry as what he indicates in fact it further goes on to say right at the point where my colleague is quoting that there do not need to be specific findings if there is an apparent or declared reason that any amendment would be futile and the district court judge may hand determined that this would be futile to allow an amendment this is so because we come back to what is in the four corners of this amended complaint alleged that she filed and complaint on a certain date and she alleged that it is timely she did not allege that she also filed it with the nevada equal rights commission which we enduring lee called nerk and she does not allege in her complaint the existence of a work share agreement the counsel for the appellant is correct that there time in their briefing are cases where the work share agreement was a matter of record the cases had reached summary judgment we here are a motion to dismiss matter we dispute that it exists as a matter of law because in this particular instance we don't know what the work share agreement says in terms of whether there is a  order for which charges or complaints need to be filed that is to say under title seven it's in visioned that a complaint in order to expand from one hundred and eighty dollars days to two or to three hundred dollars days requires it st to be filed with nerk but we don't have that here we we're there are cases cases out there where a work shared agreement from other years not from the year that this was in place talk about a simultaneously filed charge but we don't know that to be the case here then shouldn't the district court of allowed the plaintiffs to amend their complaint plaintiffs did have the opportunity to amend their complaint and in fact during the briefing of the motion to dismiss the plaintiff filed an amended complaint and that was the complaint that clark county answered they did not seek leave to file that amended complaint they did so they filed it in concert they amended complaint that they actually filed not that they're requesting further leave to file those are two separate issues the one that they actually filed their original one was august st the nd one was in november what that one they're talking and i get this straight you're saying that because they didn't include the berkshire agreement in their allegations in their complaint good district court was sprit to disregard it no your honor because the the district because the allegations in the complaint did not indicate they filed with nerve for all we know the actual charge which they reference they incorporate and in this particular case it was very there was no bar to the plaintive either attaching her charge to her complaint or specifically alleging in her complaint that she simultaneously filed with nerk that is what she needed to allege in order to expand it to the three hundred days your honor she did not need to indicate that there was a work share agreement but she did need that factual allegation she may have written across it bob the top of her her e e o c e o c e o is the charge that she does not want this filed with nerk and if that is the case then it's good morning your honor my name is q ireland i'm here on behalf of defendant stephen gruesome and i will be addressing the state law claims which are sorted against both individual defendants we ask that the dismissal of these claims be affirmed and unless the court has questions on another topic i'd like to just briefly address why the question should not be certified to the supreme court of nevada there are a couple reasons why not the st is that the pla even ask for certification and that in the district court the plaintiff only asked for the question to be certified after receiving an adverse decision below and this court has held that where a planet as your state of occasion after receiving an adverse decision is the certification should only be granted where there are quote particularly compelling reasons why it should be why the plaintiff should be allowed a nd chance at victory and there are no such compelling reasons here the nd reason why the question should not  be certified is that this is not a case where there is some missing rule in nevada law and we don't we don't know how to apply we don't know what test to apply something like that we have a rule in nevada it's a statute of limitations as modified by the discovery rule and the supreme court of nevada has never adopted any exception besides discovery rule so it was quite proper for the district court to apply the rule in the books and not to bring in some innovation that has been recognized by some other  of other torts not in the context of business torts but in the context of other torts and the final reason why certification should not be why the question should not be certified here is because the district court did analyze whether the continuing violation or continuing tort doctrine would change would make the plaintiff's claim say a lot of claims timely and it found that it would not so in fact this question would not even be outcome determin doesn't have any other questions on the state all claims i would just ask ok from the dismissal thank you thank you very much counsel i'll honor with respect to the issue under the federal discrimination claims i want to point out again that the law is three hundred dollars days under nevada law and it is simultaneously file a nd amended complaint could you allege that it was all of these cash absolutely ok or you know so we don't have the handwritten statement on top of the that i'm somewhat sympathetic to the district court because that's the area of the district court of what it was put before the disregard that we have the three hundred day time limit because of the work because of the work sure you agree with because thought that we did make an argument usually that's what it would be because if there's a question about the three hundred days you talk about the work sure you talk about the simultaneous filing because the agency relationship so