company started in las vegas in a process in one nine hundred seventy eight he started as a very small general contractor doing mostly renovations he took that small minority owned business from doing thousand dollar projects to doing projects in excess of eight nine million dollars at a time primarily focusing on public works projects mr richardson as a minority and he's the sole owner of rich construction company had no business relationships when he came to los vegas and believed public works projects would be the best opportunity for his coming to growth knowing the public works projects depend completely on competitive bidding he didn't believe having not knowing anyone in las vegas with the a disadvantage in fact he also believes that not that thing of norty would not be a disadvantage because the process is strictly competitive from nine hundred seventy eight one thousand nine hundred nine that's nine richest in the clark county school district carry a fairly good relationship with your son was averaging somewhere between ten million dollars a year or in excess of that amount for the last several years of its business relationship with the clark county school district unfortunately in one thousand just before nine hundred ninety nine the clark county school district's construction apartment changed the face of those governing that body of people changed cases against the clark county school district so that's the difference in terms of when he ascended to the position of director of modernization that's an tell tale frederick smith was the director of construction management but telltales supervisor and charles mccreery was the new construction department head so that's the hierarchy in terms of the clark county school district construction department cases coming out of the nevada federal court district court we believe we met that requirement there is no heightened requirement for nine hundred eighty three actions and we believe we met that requirement and that those cases in receive that information that originally changed in one thousand nine hundred ninety nine two thousand but then it so we continue with the lawsuits and prevailed and so after prevailing we informed them we've prevail these cases will you now allow us to bid on your projects in two thousand to two thousand and one we received different comments from different people within the c c s the clark county school district hierarchy including the general counsel telling us although you've prevailed here because you still have litigation going we're not going to allow you to pre qualify at seventy two thousand one in two thousand and two and we also within our complaint set out every da beyond two thousand and two in two thousand and three because these other cases that i've started providing information to the court on were ongoing and as we continue resolving them in our favor we said we don't believe that you can still hold this over our head and not allow us to bid so that's why the two year statue of limitations not apply certainly is a continuing violation that's seen in the cases we've already cited to know briefs because we received notices in two thousand to two thousand one two thousand and three after we we want to case we've asked is it now is a time that we can now begin bidding again on your products and again in two thousand and two we are informed no you still cannot and so when we after we'd won every ca subcontractor clean but we prevailed in every case so that's when the statue of limitations should of stuff started after we prevailed and they gave us their final decision that they were not allowing us to prevent it that's when it obviously being a motion to dismiss were here on the pleadings and i think a number of things that the plaintiffs just plaintiff counsel to set forth for you are clearly not in the complaint and in fact contradict the complaint first of all in regards to your question about mr dell the complaint specifically states that paragraph eleven this is the third amended complaint that he was hired in one thousand nine hundred nine as the point man for these projects and it was right after that that supposedly everything started changing in this construction so we're talking nearly ten years before nine hundred ninety nine which is their last prequalification attempt and then obviously fourteen years before june of two thousand and say when judge jones determined that the statutes are right well i think if you look at his original order which i think is awkward forty five which it is following the began and you must remember your father's this is not a case where the plaintiff is alleging that somehow they were not aware of what was going on clearly in the complaint i think it's paragraph sixteen they say that their package was denied in one thousand nine hundred nine and they specifically allege in december of ninety nine that they were told that that's because of these ongoing cases clearly at that time they had all the facts about their alleged injury and could have brought suit the court below clearly held in that first order that that started the statute of limitations which was being two years taking you to obviously two thousand and one this case was not filed till two thousand and three then what happened was and as you can see from the complaint these claims changed miraculously throughout these and complaints and also the opposition to the motion dismissed then all of a sudden while playing of continued to argue when we think the statute of limitations continues old or under all by circuit case law before the supreme court's amtrack case they then started throwing in and actually i would tell you that it was the judge who threw the senate one of the oral arguments he said well what about futility in pla as i'm sure any lawyer would jumped on that and said oh yes we think it was futile because we were told that we wouldn't be able to bid on these or wouldn't get these projects now what mr parker has just alluded to in his argument he sa that richardson construction waited until essentially these ongoing cases had ended and then came to i think the statement was and then came to the district to say ok can we now bid on these you will find nothing like that in the complaint or alleged anywhere in fact all the allegations in this complaint you will find and i think this is paragraphs sixteen and eighteen had to do with and they specifically say pretrial conferences and settlement conferences in these other cases where plants claim somehow the issue of other projects or can we bid on other things came up and i would tell you that probably is normal course there were some discussions to try to settle globally  what would happen with all these cases as many parties do and richardson construction was always continually throwing and well can't we now just start bidding and so this was a mix in the settlement discussions of all these cases and so what happened was then they file using this a continuing plan aleisha well because nothing ever ever happened under amtrak you have to have discrete acts after nine hundred ninety nine the plaintiffs did nothing to ask  for to be pre qualified or construction did mr parker kind of imply i did what we went to the school district to try to get that suggesting that somehow there were discussions about prequalification you know in the normal application process nothing of like that happened and i think that's where all the futility cases and and you really won't find many that actually go with the futility argument you show the cases throwing these hypotheticals the normal one being the poster over the door at the employment you know office that says whites only well then you can turn up will quote clearly even in that situation that would trigger the statute of limitations you wouldn't be able leave that employment office wait four years five years whatever it may be and say ok now i want to sue they're trying to take futility in estancia we use that to completely throw out any statute of limitations under their argument they could wait five years ten years whatever it may be they've never made any you just record yes i think they're all in the most did you get a reaction from the younger one i think that's what he did i think he in his last order and it it's not all wrong decision i mean this case had been on a motion dismissed for three years he'd written a couple  decisions he didn't get along lengthy opinion but he talks about futility and statute limitations i think what the judge was doing clearly was this case had always been about lost profits and that's kind of where the where the spending came in t t these injuries would be so speculative so nebulous that you couldn't you couldn't be able to start to redress those and so what the judge did below in the last door of said i believe plaintiffs are still saying lost profits if you look in every brief they say we have lost millions of dollars from every project we would have gotten which would have been lost profit profit in fact even in this third bridge in the plaintiff's third brief before this court where they tried to in jack north eastern florida which i hope i don't have to get into as a new basis even in that one in the footnote one they're still saying we can prove our damages of lost profits either by our historical profits in these cases or because the law doesn't require certainly they're still going with lost profits that's always been their case and that's why they have no standing because that injury cannot be redressed at this time without those applications which makes this case fall under madsen and so it was a mix of statute of limitations and also then plaintiff trying to go with futility t take that statute of limitations from two years to forever they were saying well every once in while he's in the settlement conferences or pretrial conferences the issue still comes up so we must still be able to and we should have had to follow an application because it would have been futile so now we must be able to to this day or any they continue to do this and our position has always been that at least in futility that  let's comments are so far removed from either the application process or the people in control that's not the district what some warrior or some client representative may say at a other litigation pending before court or settlement conference to then use that and say well that's why we didn't go apply i think they stretched any case that anybody could ever cite to this or to this court well beyond did not contest a reasonable notice of the fees it's just whether the case met the christian standard or not finally we had done a motion to strike which we thought the panel would consider it looks like it was denied i would just bring that up while there's been no questions about the northeastern line of cases as set forth in our motion to strike that is a completely spink theory of standing it has nothing to do with futility it has nothing to do with the claim plaintiff originally brought which was for lost profits and to allow plaintiffs to go through story sets of motions to dismiss an opening brief never say anything about it and then throw it in a little bit in his third br hand raised in court appeal and even stated it is an issue either in the docking statement or the opening brief and to even consider that issue i believe would be against the federal rule twenty eight all right handicapped parking space was never made you never apply for the permit here we actually made the application we requested through the preamble prequalification process and were denied and again and form very similar to the serrano case we were informed telephonically even after that by chuck mcqueary which is pointed out in our complaint that we would never be allowed to bid on those projects while we had litigation going forward  on the ear on the tail of the prequalification process for the two thousand year now the two thousand one two thousand and two events are all of course documented in the complaint and appellee of course is trying to escape the northeastern case because it says on its face you don't have to prove that you have been successful in competitive bids that just that you were prevented from taking part in protests of painting and those kids and that's where our damage claim comes from and that's the decision that