your honors are working that's fine sorry sorry about that may it please the court the language of the th amendment is very clear when government takes private property for a public purpose the government must just legend of the courthouse then you've got to show us the substantive bile ation and is it your contention that the substantive bile ation the th amendment taking in this case is the fact they haven't paid your judgment is that well it down that simpl say that the failure to pay a judgment is a standalone th amendment taking it in your honor it's not a failure to pay any judgment it is a just compensation judgment the th amendment requires payment it which can be enforced that is collective by judicial process the veil on to isn't there some louisiana judicial process you can use your honor there why is this action a i understand that you had a choice of the time but the point is you actually filed in louisiana proceeding and you won i am not sure this exhaustion and also is works when you when you win the case a judge whoa i respectfully disagree did not file a louisiana proceeding st bernard court filed it louisiana proceeding which resulted in violet having to assert his objections to the taking we did not pick louisiana as a forum back in two thousand and ten same paragraph i think the lose and then come to federal court here as i understand it you actually want you have a state court victory you just want to enforce isn't that right we do want to enforce it you're on or and in williamson county even before net page one  the us supreme court recognized when a party goes through the state procedures but is denied compensation which is what has happened here there is a federal calling even williamson county recognized host williamson county post nic if there is two avenues to go forward for collection nic says we do not have to exhaust any more state remedies we spent eight years in the louisiana courts only to get a judgment that is a piece of paper that same herd will not pay eighteen the louisiana th circuit tells st bernard ports that there is more than twelve million dollars at that time of additional compensation plus interest in attorney's fees we are now here today no closer to getting a payment on that judgment which is now up to twenty two million dollars nine hundred and fifty thousand dollars in interest has accumulated on paper since july when this lawsuit was filed the record and we will legend paragraph twenty nine dollars of our petition o complaint st bernard has willfully refused or i'm sorry the words we used were willful and knowingly failed to pay it's an ongoing violation and so what we have is two years have passed since the easy end of war circuit even said the judgments more than twelve million dollars and in their brief before this court st bernard starting on page thirty three dollars says this is a discretionary matter their view is as long as they don't appropriate money to pay the judgment they don't have to pay that is the problem that is the denial of payment this court has already addressed similar argument outside of the takings context with government refusing to pay for their constitutional violations the gary w case which was cited by the institute of just for justice at the end of their brief makes it clear the procedural hurdle st bernard is trying to use to avoid payment the anti seizure provisions the failure to appropriate money for those do not apply against federal claims asserting federal interest in a federal court that's why we're here because in louisiana maybe there is a remedy maybe there's not but what we know is there is years and years more litigation constitutional litigation over the validity of the louisiana statutes and what can be collected and what cannot but the federal courts do not have the same bar for the freeman case cited in our opening breve also stands for this proposition it cites gates and several others we don't want years and years we're co framers view was not that government could take property and delay years on end not paying the judgment that's contrary to what the framers intended and that's what saint bernard is trying to do is to prevent payment we have there's a very important th amendment policy at play the policy is that government should not be able to place the burden of government on handful of individuals here the families that don't buy the violation they lost their property they lost their customers st bernard took over the customer streams took over the united states navy business and at the end of ten years of having to deal with that the families are still being forced to fund a government loan with indefinite payment that is the promise and this may be the same exact question the judge barksdale asked you at the very beginning of the ar but if this were just a case that you had a commercial disagreement and you'd want to judgment you would not be saying that you have a th amendment right to recovery and judgment but that's not why you're entitled to really you're entitle to relief because there's a specific clause in the constitution it speaks to compensation is that right that's correct your honor it's not just concede that point but it would be a very different case we'd have a much more difficult time what we're seeking here is payment of the th amendment compensation which vaught even draw said distinction between a th amendment compensation judgment and some other type of judgment i mean if you think about it st bernard law is on the tort cases like minton and other cases where this court has said there is not a property right to collect on a state court toward judgment but those are very different circumstances when we're dealing with for example a state court torch adamant the state can define the limits of its tort they can despond the limits a liability with the state of louisiana cannot define it is narrow the limits of the just compensation required by in case because there's been a suggestion that we didn't use the magic word that saint bernard refused to pay as opposed to just hasn't paid if we had to amend we could also i'm in today to say it's been a year in whatever later and they still haven't paid but we don't believe any of those facts are necessary to actually i'm in the pleading to state a viable claim we have a situation where government took property has not paid it and you can see in the brief you can also see this on page sixty of the record where they argue in the district court their view is they have discretion to decide if they ever want to pay the judgment that's just not what the th amendment stands for and that's the opposite of what the supreme court said to nick and seventy six the idea that government can take property in indefinitely refused to pay for it is offensive to the framers it's offensive to the text of the constitution and you know we're dealing with damages yet in your honor we haven't challenge that on this appeal we have not raised the argument for peter damages what my client wants just to be clear is they want compensation after ten years of being without the property without their customers paying for lawyers for ten years this is believe it or not the th appellate argument in this case st one of the federal courts they just want with the th amendment says we were entitled to which is compensation the supreme court in the the landowners are entitled to be paid and pay promptly in the excuse me in the  in the brad case i'm sorry sprinklered said payment should be without undue delay and that's what we're seeking is payment it's under the laser it happened but we're seeking payment after nick which was decided thai seizure statutes that time is over the film would ask what exactly is before us today do i understand correctly the district court didn't adjudicate the delays she has so much as i just said this whole suit is barred to get paid if you think about mitten it makes sense an accident happened government didn't go out and try to cross a bus crash like i thought you just said that you were going to concede it that it's a non  kidney issue before or was it taking this claim or just a procedural due process like your honor i got as i read it remember that case i thought it was a procedural due process however the court did awk about louisiana wall and said that in it's your argument it in your are i apologize if it sounds like i'm trying to give that up i was trying to walk a fine line because that's actually the case we don't decide the issue before the board is this is a takings judgment where there clearly is a property right compensation and we're asking for to reverse the disparate words decision so that we can proceed and hopefully get my client they want their own counsel and your towns up and just answer this question so what's the rule supposed to be once there is a judgment the governmental entity has to pay within what two days your honor the answer would come from the supreme court precedent the judgment would have to be paid without undue delay is the language from the break case here this is a lose in a court judgment a very substantial judgment and in louisiana there must be some process for satisfaction of judgment just like there is in every state in the union and that's what it puzzles me why we're not taking that route when you have a judgment from a louisiana court your honor that the problem with louisiana procedures is if you've already heard saint bernard say it in their you know they have ninety one million dollars of net assets but they say they don't have to appropriate any funds those are the barriers they raise in state court that can compel us to litigate the constitutionality of their procedures to bar payment of a compensation judgment as the gary wu cases those same procedures do not apply in federal court and so that is the process the problem we're trying to get to the speedy efficient rimini the th amendment was supposed to provide in what we're getting from st bernard are working off the record doesn't show but they have been working on it for some time and we've made different offers back and forth to file it and what about offers there's a judgment for a specific amount of money you're supposed to pay that amount well meaning while we were trying to line up the finding we'd offer to pay the make interest payments and various things like this and i'll act it in except that counsel we're not talking about settlement here we're talking about collection or payment of the judgment it's due to on the takings claim and there was some representation made that your client had the position that it may not be in the record and you can say it's not in the record but your client had the position question is your client's position and is it in the in the record that it's your client's position that if as long as the client doesn't ever allocate the money it never ever has to pay sa same the client i'm sorry the landowner violet has to her quest and appropriation of form a court has in your position is that that is not been done and so it's never going to have to pay this judgment the poor is already working is constant has been working with violet to resolve this regardless of the request and they are they are making efforts to satisfy the judgment even now so he does have an obligation to pay if this appropriation it's your position that they your client has no obligation to pay is that your position or not we recognize that we have the obligation to pay it and that's why the  that it could pay full amount the full amount of any just compensation award in favor of bala port now you're not saying that this is not a just compensation war and i know y so you've got the money so pay up we don't is really this is really ludicrous you say they've got to request an appropriation and then we have the discretion whether or not we're going to pay it and then you say but anyway we're trying to satisfy the judgment right now it's not making st bernard parish look very good to say the least you had are valid i believe is the one who said that we agreed that we were going to pay and we have a say we are making efforts to make the payment but the port didn't have doesn't necessarily have two thousand eight hundred and twenty two million dollars immediately available that's why we're trying to work with violet and other that money what's what's the process they can go to court and seek mandamus although that may not be successful why wouldn't it be successful they've got a valid judgment for some thirty whatever the bounciest one of us to say twenty three million dollars you seize their property you pay them sixteen million and now you're acting like you really don't have to pay  so you can't do this execution on the state property if your property is indeed state property and that would have to if litigated right if we don't satisfy the judgment yes so date for you but you don't need the request for an appropriation you're not you're not insisting on that you try to pay it all we are trying to pay it off without the request for an appropriation my only point there was that we talked  earlier with mr hastings about the fact that there are processed cheese including requesting an appropriation which would be step one and i'll dock hasn't even done that but you're not that's not the reason you'll have the paid here you said that you have this o ion anyway so that's not the reason you haven't paid not you personally i understand thank you the porter is correct that is not the reason but they also haven't that tomorrow we'll get a check by january one two thousand and twenty one i don't i don't know they could get a potential i think it would depend on whether you're talking about the full amount or previously offered to pay annual interest while we are working on paying off the full judgment and that was rejected by violet well they don't have to agree to a payment plan i asked again do you have a legal argument before this court counsel plus legal argument was that they brought this case only pursuant to following the new change in the ruling in net versus town of scott and our legal argument is that nick versus town of scott and sonia has does not have applicability in this case that is a case where condemnation proceedings were can be instituted it reversed a prior those regulatory or m r s condemnation indirect condemnation cases rest of all of those cases is that is to protect a landowner when there is a taking i interact action to make sure that they have a process and that they have a pathway for just compensation and that's what nic is setting out and that is what docs complaint says that they are basing their claims on the duty  paragraph have twenty eight dollars of their complaint sets out the payment failure for payment citing the new nick case so our point our argument is that nick does not govern this type of without that correct ok and your knowledge that when it was as payment of just on that station is not just a paper judgment you actually have to pay on that judgement you're not that we do and that's what we're working on yes both parties stand and what happened to that appeal this louisiana supreme court denied well there wasn't an appeal because it was that the th circuit we had to seek supervisory reds and the supreme court denied grants from both parties box pleadings and papers were premised on the net case which said that it allowed it to come into a federal court to enforce this suit and our position is that and the district court correctly held that neg didn't convert nine hundred section nine hundred and eighty three into a collection tool so yes we agree we believe that the district court's opinion was correct and that the case was properly dismissed if we don't believe this is a collection action we believe this is a constitutional action under nine thousand and ninety three that you lose litigated in the proceeding do you lose this particular appeal if we don't think this is just a collection action on the judgment we think this is a constitutional act and under nine of the case so what if there was no nick case even with no mic case and were in the williamson county or were not even under a williamson county and why would you not lose because we have already potential question because as i understand it this is on a motion to dismiss so it's really disappear a legal issue we don't really need to worry about the facts of any particular claim silly as not that all government takes property and it is down by the state court proceeding it makes that clear for all to see are you saying there is nothing that could be done in a federal court or your knowledge that there would be ethical or remedy if there is a true refusal to pay then perhaps there is a federal court r when there is a denial by the banking authority and our true refusal to pay then there may be have a th circuit effect a th amendment remedy but that's not the case here ok so it sounds like your complaint is sort of a pleading issue that be a federal cause of action along the lines of what's been filed here it sounds like you're dispute is that you are not that difficult entity you're willing to pay correct and that's not yes and at the time they filed it only been three months so then it sounds to me that's a fact issue as long as the as long as violet has pled properly an allegation that you refused to pay i get that you deny that but that's on a motion is this issue i don't think i think that's a fact issue well again the pleadings and the briefing were based on the decision in nick which is why the district court decided it st is just a factual complaint you know i'm not sure that answers my question perhaps he did it doesn't matter me how they played it my point is if they were to plead properly that you took their property they got a good judgment from a state court but you just refused to pay that correct you're right you have anything further is now a man i'd like to ask a question judge assuming that mr hastings files his request with your client this afternoon by e mail what is the normal process timeline for acting on appropriation request what happens well i think it would depend for st bernard port itself or the entity yes it would depend i don't know if you're asking under state bar for the port in particular when it would have to that frankly they don't requests for appropriation well they basic different counsel in different circumstances then other times they have request that they did not come to our office they they've used other local counsel it just depends on the particular request actually unable to is the proper results in your mind to return the property d i suppose that would have to be litigated amongst all of its various creditors and and what i'm trying to forecast is you may have to return this property if you don't back i appreciate that  the time for st bernard poor to raise funds was back in two thousand and ten when they took the property and were warned it was worth far more than st bernard was willing to pay we've alleged that same pienaar had ninety one million dollars of bad assets plenty of money to pay the judgment today we have heard a new excuse that we didn't make the proper request to st bernard that's outside the record st time that has been raised but paragraph nineteen of our complaint says we made demands because we did we've been trying to get paid for a long time this argument that the proper demand wasn't made is brand new today my client's entitle to be paid it's not you are you i have liane there's a difference between demand and requests for appropriation we said despite amicable demand your honor if there is a formal process this is the st they've raised this today well i suggest you find out what the process is and do it look at the split i completely agree your honor and it would have been nice to hear this before here but i ask you the same question i asked the other side with in the event that they are simply unwilling or unable to pay you will probably back  actually want to answer both of you the questions you're asking the other side the problem with getting the property back at this point is they've had st bernard's been on it for ten years they've had our customers for ten years our revenues for ten years getting the property back now just starts  damage trial of everything that's happened over the last ten years so that would be learned i understand it's not ideal i understand it's not your number one class in fact i read your complaint you don't ask for this you asked for everything else other than the injunctive relief forcing the return of pro miss coker hypothetical and my answer to your hypotheticals it sounded an awful lot like this court's decision involved and so we believe that the court has already recognized that this type of claim may go forward all my client wants to do is get paid on this judgment it's been deprived of its property for many many many years now if we need to make a demand today we will do it if we need secret handshake we will do it we just want to get paid which is what the th amendment requires i agree with you that bought is a is a potentially awful case for you that's why i was expressing surprise that you didn't mention in your break if you're in your honor it's a very important case for us and if it was not mentioned in the opening brief it's my apologies in an oversight rod what it would it serve a purpose if you are quire the parties to keep us posted on a weekly basis of the request and what is taking place so we know what's going on and perhaps they can resolve that before we righted  status update in seven days and there after until the court ceases the request any thank you this matter is submitted and the court will stand adjourned until tomorrow morning thank you