matter the last time we were here we got a decision that was not favorable to us we do not agree with what the court did but we accept it and we respect the court's judgment in that matter today all we ask is that you remain consistent with decision that you previously made so would you agree that in title man is law the case absolutely fact i surprisingly the way i read the brief is that they're trying to say what available to the defendants on the state law claimed in this case because ms ruff made a complaint to the police because that was the complaint was regarding a matter of concern to them and then she got sued for that and let me ask you this question to you have a habit of sort of cutting to the chase and if we agree with you why go to the trouble of sending this back to the district court for resolution would you be willing to sit down with our circuit mediator have perkins coolly refine their request in the way your suggestion this is if we agree with you and simply resolve the matter as to what the a mount i am always open to be patient and resolving cases when i write i think you go ahead with the argument i just want to get that point out but technically there someone needs to at some point the trauma of what actually is recoverable under the statute is if it can't be resolved well we can send you back to the district court and you can wait they can wait in their client and wait for you know about a week or two you can sit down and we have a circuit mediator right here in seattle and they can say here's what we think it is and you can refine it and hopefully come to an agreement right and we would be certainly willing to engage in that process you know all right thank you but getting back to the legal argument so there are those three things that needed to be established we argued that you can't take the case to trial and then claim immunity you guys disagreed with us on that but one thing is clear is what this court said was required to stop the human community all that was in the complaint it was right there for the judge to say look what they pled to establish is our unity you should dismiss this case right now that's what you do if you believe you have immunity you don't allow your client to be deposed you don't go hire experts you don't e cousin on the local police force and have them send out a swat team of crime to this court ruled yes because this court ruled it's absolute immunity that was not qualified in any way so when you've got absolute immunity as they argue the whole point is to protect the defendant from having to do all the things that their attorneys did so it's your position that as long as someone from starbucks reported this to someone in law enforcement no fact would take it outside of the unity that's the way this court ruled ok right now as i say they claim the whole point is to prevent  or protect a defendant in these cases from having the burden of the expense of litigation and the time right so what they want to now say is well we can go you all that anyway and then get paid for it at the end because we started out with immunity well that's not what the statute is about the statues about stopping the lawsuit in its tracks well counsel if we reach agree with you about that and i think it seems to be a really debatable point which is why you're all here but but if we were to agree about that how would you have us measure this that what you need to do is you need to go back and look at what work was actually done to establish immunity because that's what the statute says you can recover costs in attorney's fees known quoting trying to figure out how you measure it and so what they did do though is they did bring it up at summary judgment so i would believe there would be some of that time or whatever was involved in that part of the summary judgment that yes ok because they're part of that was the unity defense but then they had another they had a chance there to appeal an adverse ruling and they didn't so i'm hard pressed to find anything from that point on that was directed toward a stablish saying the defense of immunity everything that was done from that point on was preparing for trial for litigating the merits of the case ok so is the answer to my question i don't mean to belabor the point but is the answer that you think they're entitled to some answer which i think would be appropriate about researching the immunity issue and those kinds of things all right think goes to the heart of your question judge kristen and the gist of the error that they claim is that once that we had the benefit of the ninth circuit ruling that once appellant had determined what the quickest and fastest way that the appellate could have won this case and that would have been a motion for judgment the pleadings and other twenty appeal that would be a great argument advocating absolutely ana because from the beginning both the district court made clear in its rulings and the appellant argued is that the defense of immunity included a good faith requirement it require clue did an implicit good faith requirement according to appellant that meant if you were able to prove to a jury that the that the matter was not one of reasonable concern to the police for example if leslie ruff falsely reported crime then he argued that would not be a matter reasonably of concern to the police in order to determine that a trial with required likewise in order to determine whether her motivation was based in malice a trial was required so the interpretation that the district court gave the statute and the position that the appellant's took from the very beginning of this litigation required us to prevail on the defense by going to trial had no other way how forgive me for interrupting how many depositions were taken in addition to roughs and correct me if i'm wrong mr wall but if i recall correctly the eyewitnesses depositions were taken the detect there were also seems to me from your briefing that you you think all of your fees are for garrett i don't think that's correct john are we we did reduce at the district court level we took out all fees that were required only to prove or that were time that was spence that was only attributable to for example the one nine hundred eighty three action against leslie ruff because remember we so there was already that parsing done at the district level the district work of its very specific direction as to what we were year for summary judgment the likelihood is they would have responded by saying we don't know enough to establish whether this meets the substantive requirements of the anti slavery statu well they were correct and not just that they would have but that is what they did remember that we did move to in opposition to their motion to amend the complaint and we based that on the twelve basic standard that the claim was futile and it was futile because of the immunity statute we lost that and they argued it was necessary to go to a hearing in order to make that determination again we move for summary judgment and again appellant argued we could not resolve this there were an issue of fact as to whether m ruff acted in good faith or acted with malice whether she knowingly made a false report there was no way based on the position taken by the district court and by their parents that we could prevail on the defense other than my going to trial you asked then your honor how do you measure the cost then incurred in establishing the defense i would argue that the statute provides well can i refine that because and then to go i think part of the conversation veered off which is fine in response to a different question but i was asking your position at this point you think all of it is fair game and i don't know if you can just i don't mean the entirety of park and bill are on the defense costs i mean what the district court ordered at this point you think this is all related to establishing this defense that is correct your honor i believe that after after the retraction is made at the lower court level and and pursuant to that question if you had decided what had been included what remains here today are only those so putting aside my belief that it would be futile to engage with mr gets i don't think it answers the underlying question that is really at the heart and that is whether the district court properly awarded feeds one such determine whether there's an ability to settle there everyone is willing to always sit down but i do think that the gist of plaintiff appellant argument here cannot be reconciled with the law or with the statute itself your honor the statute specifically says that reasonable attorney should be provided that is a standard that is while known to the district court and it's a standard that was employed by the district court what is being advocated here by by appellant is that there is a strict liability standard and other words what he is saying i i know a faster way that you could have gotten immunity granted because i have figured out a faster way you therefore don't get any expenses incurred on a task other than those that involve the fastest way to immunity that's malice or the good faith of leslie ruff or whether he knowingly false report was made they can now come here however many years later and take a contrary position that we should not have gone to trial that we should have taken this up on appeal the last point that i want to make and i know i only have two minutes left is the fact that there is a factual the factual premise underlying their argument is flawed and it explains why this is not an analysis that either the district court of the appellate court should get involved with from the merits of the litigation and it does not qualify under the case law michel the for size because it does not provide immunity from suit it only provides in unity from civil liability so collateral order review was not available and the reason i point that out is because if plaintiffs interpretation of the statute is correct then every time a district court is faced with determining what the fees are incurring in establishing the defense they're going to have to second guess and trying to figure out what the most fastest and quickest way of doing so rather than the reasonable miss dander that the district court has always entailed there is nothing in the statute that provides for a different interpretation other than the reasonable ness and and other words a different rule for the attorney's fees would apply as opposed to what the rule you have established for the ex actually said immunity they want it both ways you agree with you that this matter should go back to no i don't think this well no i don't think so because this is an argument about the attorney's fees not about the immunity establishing on all of them my question is was supposed to suppose we send it back to the district court and direct the district court that the answer to that question is yes is your client aware that yes he is i mean we were aware that there was a possibility that fees would be awarded at some point but again those fees should be establish the fence all they needed to do was appeal which she says there was no other way for us to establish this defense that's flat wrong but if there wasn't that way the question is just whether they were reasonably incurred what  reason if you do what you're suggesting is you're applying a double standard you're playing one standard for establishing defense and a different standard for deciding what attorneys fees are awarded will and so you're basically saying the defense is st