same matter both this case and also the key thing before you is three zero nine zero nine eight eight in the subsequent months the county the defendant in the case filed a motion to dismiss arguing that the court lacks jurisdiction because the case should have been appealed pursuant to legislative review procedures rather than legislative or or i'm sorry for the decisions that occurred in two thousand and nine they would have been separate to legislative review now there were only a couple of cases from the appellate courts that really interpreted twelve of twelve point one county denied a special use permit through an ordinance that rendered the decision legislative well briefly after that shortly after that same court in the linnean maintenance management in vs county of lake found that appropriate in this case however the precedent was such at the time that we felt that the only way to secure our client's right to have been saying for it to be heard on the merits  service by the sheriff as a legislative review because of the difference is the fact that this is an entirely different system that had been developed legislatively out we did not feel that it was appropriate to file both cause of action of review in one court and one and three in one case now interestingly they are they were both before the same judge in the same courtroom and for that reason we felt that there was no to preserve her rights under the statute of limitations and at twelve o twelve point one of the counties code evades the law as it's been developed was such that we would lose our rights through administrative the result and it's simply that when we we believe a violation of due process if it comes to that hopefully never but it would be a violation of constitutional rights and moreover it would be an absurd result and maybe that's the the clearest way to point this out for the court is in simply an absurd result that we would be deprived of our right to review when as justice letting this pointed out in your ordinary case you would be able to plead the alternative  into administrative versus legislative or human how different those processes are so many different sections of the code of civil procedure even we should not be deprived of our right to have our name or especially given that we didn't file in one i think would potentially operate as it says in the merits on the other more importantly i think for purposes is the fact that these cases were both filed for one court and the cases are now before this dismissal of the legislative review case and the opposite is also true so once there was a final decision as to the appropriate time for vo it would be a simple thing for any co to ensure that those decisions were consistent into to toss out the case that it really had no for the marriage because the decision a final decision on the merits had been rendered in the one recognizes this does not come out every day more only where there isn't a need for an alternative reading one can do that alternate pleading with in one case we could do that in that case so we are in a sort of an odd position so the verdicts or what have you these are all questions that i think come up in our case as well and there are relevant to our to this analysis and one of the other elements that that is highlighted in that line of case law that i think is very relevant is the question of at all by allowing bikies remain on the books but stayed because as we pointed out no there should be an ability of the courts at every level to make this consistent and to preserve the rights of m allowing the two cases to remain on the books while staying the legislative review case hoped this day of the legislative piece to the outcome of the administrative review yes it would ensure that the two decisions were insistent and that no one was deprived of rights just because of the parties and legal issues involved and the same or the issues involved in a later found action of the type that can and ordinarily should be disposed of in the course of the original action and that is not appeared to be any proper purpose for the maintenance administrative review is the appropriate course of action do you think they would could have put it in the old term and yes your honor i do think they could have put it in the alternative some of the problems that ms never mentioned the service of process of which issue there either it's quite common to have cases with multiple and differing accounts for instance you could have a case where one count alleges a violation of the u s constitution one count alleges a violation of the state constitution and one count alleges medical malpractise to support the medical malpractise claim you have to file an affidavit which isn't required for the other counts obviously some of those towns have said it's a state law centers of the federal law there are different presenting an argument contrary to their earlier successful argument of which they intend the benefit of receiving their chosen point of view that is they filed a case that the only way it could applicable statute of limitations it is not proper for to the plaintiff to bring that case or at the plaintiff does bring the case and there should be held to his argument of what the jurisdiction is it should be held to the statue of limitations and that case should be properly burdened by a litigation if the plaintiff is allowed to strike invent the statue of limitations obviously the defendant will be prejudiced by losing the protection of the statue of limitations and it will be prejudiced by losing the protection of the doctor in a that future action affecting a possible future reddit created by a possible future law the fact of the matter is that there can be no constitutional violation now or in the future because filing law school to i think that all of my arguments city is really highlighted exactly what our purpose was and i don't think it would ever be a problem for her to file a second case to attempt to preserve your to preserve your rights and but i think another part of the day in court is coming before this court and having a right to appeal that it's part of our constitution protections and it is that it is part of marketing in court and