may call the next case sixteen eleven fifty five daniel moody versus michigan gaming control board and all oral argument not to exceed fifteen minutes per side by this court of the district court dismissed the case again it's been appealed again and that's for the future of this case involves what happened to john moody son during the time that his father was actively criticizing the michigan gaming control board threatening to sue them and then finally slowing down and the case which came before this court john and then moody are at least second and third generation horsemen who live on a family farm and who basically know no other occupation  you're cut that moody he settled with the state authorities right and he's back back in business as a trainer yes he is we resolved that matter at the administrative hearing in september two thousand and twelve and he has been back and been acting as a horse trainer since that time does that make this case first amendment third party retaliation which is pretty much the only issue in this case the due process violations and other violations that might attend his suspension even though he's now reinstated still exist but does third party retaliation is the only basis on which the court decided that the entire case should be dismissed and the court apparently made that determination because in the father's case he attempted to amend the complaint to add the first amendment retaliation against his son which was denied by the district court not only its merits but on the claim that it was untimely i obviously didn't want to lawsuits i druther have had the one and i don't mind if there is to get consolidated but the issue was i had to file the second case when i was denied amendment and the district court from public employment had a right to bring a third party retaliation case soured v the loudoun county this court in two thousand made the same ruling with regard to a wife fired because of her husband's activities there have been two or three southern district of ohio cases which involve husband and i just wanna know what your best case is you've got two or three best case those of the two you're on the standard is pretty clear there has to be an injury to the plaintiff here he was suspended from is  second there has to be a close relationship to the third party here it's father and son and there are cases which involve fathers and sons and then there has to be a hindrance to the third parties ability to sue and that's the heart of this case because i tried to amend john moodys complaint in the district court and was the night the defense claims that john moody could have represented dan moody's interests and therefore dan moody doesn't have standing to bring a third party retaliation case if your motion for john moody had been more tabla you could have proceed in that case right on that claim might have been but if i'm within the statute of limitations then the fact that i didn't file it as fast as the district court might have wanted doesn't extinguish the claim but that would seem to be an argument you would make in an appeal in that other lawsuit that is if the judge ruled you were untimely and you're really weren't that's a matter to appeal there but being a untimely isn't a hindrance he could have filed it and if you if you win the appeal then of course he would go forward showing that he could raise himself ju have a cause of action somewhere and when i got denied on my mobile but the when you say he has to have a cause of action somewhere if the legal standard is correct no third party standing unless the first party is in fact hindered there are a lot of killed types of law where you're not hinder just because you lose right i mean twenty to forty one versus twenty to fifty five you say do you have another remedy if you've lost on the other remedy doesn't mean you didn't evan other remedy well isn't that really the problem here i don't think it's a problem  one of my favorite judges says sometimes you wear a belt and suspenders too i could say i'll just rely on my appeal in john moody's case and waive my client's right to an independent action and i don't think that's good lawyering on or that's and therefore i hope they end up as one case but i can't count on that and the hindrance to the  to john moody is clear he tried to bring his son into his case and he was the knife and after that if daniel moody was going to preserve his rights because sued had to be filed and i think that he fits all there for all of the standards of third party standing and elements of the claim under camacho v brandon the supreme court case law as it applies i would be pleased to respond to any questions the court might have you're not claiming that this state administrate a board that controls harness racing didn't have  they control who gets suspended because they've they've given the horse the wrong medicine or something like that you don't have any question about their authority to do that i have no question about their authority i just think that they were wrong ministry of appeal and that was how dan got reinstated when we got to the hearing on the administrative appeal the attorney general conceded and reinstated him without condition please the court assistant attorney general thomas nath so on behalf of the pallies in this matter there is no cause of action the appellant in this case has no standing to assert the constitutional rights of his father appellate would have to show that there was some hindrance in the third party's ability to assert a claim son the plaintiff son's mother spoke out against police officers and the court found in the second circuit that there was no standing because for one there was no article three stand you know injury in fact to the third party and the court went a step further there and said even if there was an injury in fact of the third party there was no hindrance because there was no showing that the mother of the child would be unwilling to bring the claim or couldn't bring the claim herself which is directly on point with the case here and in fact in this  case john moody was not only willing to bring the claim he did bring the claim it is judge boggs as pointed out just because the claim was denied or brought on timely doesn't amount to a hindrance is that the third party must have a constitutional claim in their own rights because the third party would have to have an injury in fact and that doesn't exist in this matter in addition the apologist cited it is the person who is asserting the right is the the person that's alleging there they were injured for a violation of that individual's the plainest individual's familial sociate which is different than the claim in this case because in this case the plaintive is alleging an injury where the speech is by the third party and i also know that the claim of injury because he got suspended have standing to even bring that claim and if the third party didn't have an injury then the plaintiff can't bring the claim can't be brought and in addition if the if the pla complaint this was an alleged as a familial association claim it's a separate cause of action with a different element which is that there's an undue intrusion into the familial relationship between the family members and that was an important point in the adkins case that we don't have in this case there's been no allegation and even relationship between the plaintiff son and the third pock party father that entire line of cases requires a showing of in undue intrusion here so it can't simply be that element can't simply be substituted into a third party retaliation claim to claim those cases adkins all the way down are not third party retaliation cases they assert he has a right to assert the constitutional rights of his father in a third party retaliate in case it's not clearly established in the circuit are stewards and they would be entitle to qualify judicial munity because their proceedings are functionally functionally comparable to that of the judges they call witnesses where men receive evidence like a judge are you that's what they went to investigate for because the father was suspended and they received a tip at the time that the father may have been training horses which was viewed as a violation of  suspension and so that's that's how the investigation  if i don't have any other questions i have nothing further ok thank you can thank you mr davis you have rebuttal time a close reading of that case shows that the court never ruled on that issue in huth and who cited to lewis versus city of new york neither did that case rule on the issue of lack of standing not being a hindrance regardless if their argument is there's no such thing as standing for a third party first amendment retaliation the under just situations in this court are directly contrary to the heart and whose is not the six circuit case regarding the father's ability to protect the son's interest he tried and he was denied on non substantive grounds i understand what you said judge bikes but the fact of matter is the father reacted in as much good faith as he could and he would was denied at that point the son in order to protect himself had to act and there isn't any doubt that the son is asserting his rights he suffered an injury in fact he was suspended and he was investigated we don't complain that defendant less now or defendant ernster others wanted to be assured that john moody was not violating the terms of his suspension and exclusion they had a right to do that and we didn't resist it we indicated john moody is working as a  farmhand he doesn't have anything to do with horses that are scheduled to race completely separate they have like to expand the exclusion to mean he can't be around horses at all which would mean that he would have to move the skloot specifically say you can't be on the association grounds he can act as a stable hand about this or you're that close create standing in this case no i mean the standard is independent because of the injury in fact would it have been a more interesting case or could i have pled a familial relationship case yes would it have enhanced judicially cademy or of the actual relief and the actual injuries john moody and his father never suffered an impairment to their familial relationship they live on the same farm and him thank you great thank you council for your arguments this morning we certainly appreciate them the case will be submit it you make