expenses of the city as for that relief because the verdict on which the judgment was based was primarily based was vacated by this hour there were two causes an accident and one was vacat was a one was on a one claim for retaliation which the parties referred to below is the notice a discipline claim that resulted in again a judgement for two hundred and fifty thousand dollars there was a nd claim of retaliation based on what's called the beach assignments and that resulted in a judgment for twenty thousand dollars when this case was last before the circuit of the circuit reversed the judgment on liability decision as to fees and costs and in splice it they didn't reduce it they didn't say go back and take another look and light of the split verdict here on that convictions and it seems to me that that's pretty clear isn't it  the opinion it was to affirm the decision as to fees and costs you see you're really quibbling with the circuits mandate on the circuits decision that you came to the right place not not on fees and costs right well your honor i think that it necessarily requires a reassessment a fee of the fees and cause i think that's an error in because the because the standard for awarding fees and c one of the critical element of that is a is a degree of success that the plaintiff and she do in the course of the litigation and what's happened because of the proceedings in this case is the initial judgment that the district that's open to reconsideration by law because i think in order to have in order to have further proceedings there's there's going to have to be another evaluation of the attorneys it must be so so what portion of the costs and fees was affirmed by the circuit when it said we affirm the district court's decision as to fees and costs i am not sure that any any of any portion of that actually was i think that at the end of th interpreted this was that by sending it back for further proceedings consistent with the order that that inherently would lead to the vacation of the vacating of the of the attorney well i think that well that the original opinion in the case didn't it didn't segregate the fees from the from from the notice discipline claim from the from the lesser claim from the beach then what he did was he went through the different factors and then he put your client a a percentage reduction and that's how he arrived at his and his decision that when it came up to this court the parties both chad both sides challenge that analysis subsequent to the remain and yes the decision that this court made i think was clear the defendants have said that they are seeking clarity special appendix that sixty seeking clarity of this court's decision should have been done in the manner of a writ of mandamus or a petition to recall the mandate or a motion for reconsideration if you take a look at correct then yes if you take a look at the conduct of the defendants here i don't think it was so much that they didn't understand what the mandate or the decision said it was the th day that they moved for an extension of the stay of the judgment fourteen days they had to sikri argument why request an extension of the stairway if they did not understand the mandate i think that they took the gamble that they were going to get judge sharp to extend the stay on the judgment both for the fees and the compensation was judge sanders who tried the case right the matter was transferred immediately to judge sourness upon the application of the defendants to extend the stay i see now why why was it transferred i do not have any information regarding that your honor they also refused to pay the judgment on the work but three months later after we went through the execution and sought the order to show cause the record special appendix thirty seven dollars they acknowledge that that payment due but yet had not paid it they represented to the court that they were appealing that twenty thousand dollars judgment but they weren't and that's enough and the paperwork bears that out they signaled their intent to seek further review and or appeal and they said and i say sixty all we're seeking his clarification on what we believe was an ambiguous summary order so if they are seeking clarity from this court now we say that that's not a collateral mordor because they can't do it under rule sixty we say that this court and i've looked hard farm why defined this while the power to act on its mandate after the term expires survives to protect the integrity of the court's own processes it is not been held to survive for the convenience of the litigants that's bragg's versus pennsylvania railroad company three  court is bound by the decree as law of the case and must carry it into execution according to the mandate that's the mandate world the court cannot vary it or examine it or for any other purpose other than execution or give any other or further relief or review it even for apparent error upon any matter decided on appeal or intermeddle with it further than to saddle so much as  we would argue that and the absence of the motion for reconsideration to see clarity from this court and the absence of a motion i'm sorry of petition recalling the mandate which they certainly could do there isn't this is not a collateral order of the type that's contemplated by the courts to provide relief in these circumstances ok and so i don't disagree or take issue with the citations you bring to us but speaking for myself only the thought of getting fees for trying cases nd time  honor the defendants themselves concede that the nd and rd trials had nothing to do with the notice of discipline for terminations they can see done and they do you can see that i can tell you what page the page that they can see that we're talking now about a th trial right no i'm saying that they're they're conceding now that they had that the nd and rd trial had nothing to do with the notice of discipline for terminations right but it is not the case that would be tried no no the nd and rd trials were only for the beats assignments the adverse action that was determined by the jury and the judgment that was eventually enter the twenty thousand dollars judgment and the attorney's fees the nd and the rd trial all i had to do all they had to do is with the notice of discipline for and the plaintiff want a verdict on both climes plant they set aside the verdict liability and damages on the issue of the beach assignment we did trial number two plaintiff one we did trial number three plaintiff one we did assess segregated damages claim that the plaintiff which constituted a th case only to do with the beats assignments so the three quarters of what we're talking about scheduled for trial originally it was scheduled for october but due to the defense counsel's schedule and the end of the trial that's scheduled for february yes just that just that issue and if you win on that one you're going to seek fees for what you've incurred since the court of appeals decision right back and i think what you're saying is that the fees incurred prior to the court of appeals decision were pretty hard to segregate between the  of action because of what you just described as the different trials wrecked and if we're going to talk about the merits of the claims issue here then it's important to note that a party need not succeed on every issue nor even the most crucial one these cases on your brief know your honor these are cases i researched after receiving their reply brief so will you put them in the form of a memo to us i'd be happy to your honor can you do that within five damages doesn't have to be proportional or related to the amounts of fees because fee shifting has its own values and justice kagan recently said in two thousand and court my grievances with that order and judgment were denied their grievances with that order and judgment were denied the order was affirmed now of the basis of the court's order not to extend th stay if that's what they're appealing then that is based upon an abuse of discretion standard and my time is run thank you have you reserved three minutes thank honor just as a as a point of clarification and with all due respect to counsel i believe that the nd trial in this case involved a retrial viability on the beach to sign a coin but it actually involved but then the nd half of the same trial involved damages on both claims so the the two hundred and sixty thousand dollars that was awarded came about during the set during the nd trial and then  you know the parties have discussed so i'm not surprised to hear that all right continue just on that same line and i don't want to know anything about them but have you been through the meet this court's mediation process i mean you that if there's a dispersement if we pay the fines over it it would be very very hard if not impossible to ever recover those so in a sense on what basis would you be recovering well if there were no if there were a waiter if there were would be that it follows from the court's direction to ok so that the thing to have done was to go right back to that panel who issued that order and say can you tell us what you meant by giving all the fees and only one you very very much i thank you both if you will reserve decision the next item on our calendar is michael newsome verisign is several people who are on submission and is decided in other circuits one of the key things that they look at it was whether the dogs posed any danger to the police officers here or there was absolutely no danger in fact they were killed days after they were seized and days after any legitimate search was conducted in the residence the nd reason is that they also had days to consider the proper course of action in this case the dogs had been seized by the humane society and then they continued to you know reside at the humane society and then the killing occurred after that days after that what's the status of the humane society if we can tell from the record as a stage actor the operate to euthanize animals  holding just as some separate entity i think some authority it's a little bit difficult to tell from the complaint but i think what the answer is is that the or they would be properly characterized as being in a conspiracy with the state so the wiggle effect of the legal effect of that is that they can be held liable for all until the humane society that they can euthanize these dogs correct they were they were instructed by as far as the record reveals they were instructed by the police to do that and because of that they would be involved as in if as a conspirator with the with the police and they never said why me they said do we have to can we put them out for adoption or anything like that they never doesn't say anything about anywhere they never try to defend or represent the interests of the dogs there's nothing that reveals them trying to defend the interests of the dogs there is a there were telephone can't do was a telephone talk more i think believed to telephone conferences and in both telephone conferences the humane society was essentially repeating the line or the explanation of was given by the police and that they were aggressive and dangerous right but the evidence in the record is that they pose no dangers to the officers and that's critical because of the evidence in the record all we have is a complaint right yes the allegations on the record are that they pose no danger to the officers because of the time right of these dogs you're challenging both or one of the other what it would be both ok so the seizure i think with the complaint alleges is that these dogs are seasoned because they were aggressive or a threat in fact one of them according to the complaint was in a cage at the time right right and they were seized because mr bergen wouldn't play ball and wouldn't come down and speak with the law enforcement officers that's correct ok and so i mean there's a number of defendants here and there is only a couple of individuals who are identified in the complaint the receptionist and bone in the chief of police and the person from the humane society which is lighter but the other officers are not really mentioned at all other than their tactic with a police report that indicates an a c s the dogs were right there would be i mean the evidence that they are defendants would be based on the police reports that are cited in the appendix and they're the an improper reason i mean they did there's no statements attributed to them right above those there's no statements no statements about retaliatory motive in the complaint about what they said but their actions are reflected in the notes that were taken of the  duties as part of the department who has a policy of retaliation so because they are conspirators in the action the other actions of the coconspirators including bogan would be something that they could be held liable for until they were doubts the conspiracy and was not under arrest at this time right at the time of the seizure know that he could be taken care of them there was no need to seize them from the house that's correct at the time of the darks destruction he was onerous but he had attempted to arrange for somebody else to care for the dogs arrested by the time they were out with the humane society he was arrested by the time they were killed and cars and cars and yes and he had arranged for someone to care for the dogs he had attempted to get them released to one of his relatives i think it was a smaller dog and you and everything you're saying here is based on the complaint right you're not going outside of the pleadings the complaint in the police which is part of the cleaning yes right so the rd factor and we've talked about it a little bit is the retaliatory motive and that's i think very important to some of the other car for the th amendment and the other causes of action because it's an intentional action and you know under th th amendment law and also under the substantive due process claim that we have the the fact that is an intentional action and ways in favor of a phone in that it's not reasonable and that's and that's how that they do it is something that you would wear under the talent he of the circumstances so i believe the th amendment based on decided case law unless court and the other circuits is is relatively clear i think the other question is  process and we've broken that down into two points the two main the to be some point the district court i think clearly got it wrong on relying on the law of case because the law of case didn't deal with intentional actions and as this court has found in two other cases it says if there's was intentional substantive violation of constitutional rights love doesn't apply in the parakeets doesn't apply as a result there is no need to show that pows deprivation remedies are adequate if you violate the constitution then intentionally violate the constitution that is enough to state a claim of the due process clause under the circuits past decisions the to be some point i think is probably the most difficult suppling to talk about in terms of where the lawsuit at this point the judge and do judge below rested his decision on the hudson case which is in my mind a parallel to the parent versus taylor  under the reasoning in the next case in the supreme court that that suggests to me that the result in hudson was incorrect and because it's an intentional you know it's an intentional action due process violation also  reversed on the th amendment and due process claim because the court held those things and if they're not reversed each point is not reversed there can be an argument below that they were affirmed because they were not mentioned in isolation so i think that there has to be a reversal on the  the st instance when it returns to the district court for further analysis of the retaliation claims which you did not reach right correct and in my view you know the other interesting legal issue here is that the retaliation based on the th in the th amendment which we cited to you a district court case doesn't seem to be a lot of well developed law on the th and th the member retaliation claims most of those usually get subsumed in the st amendment and its claims but in this case i think there's a particular reason to perhaps address those because this is probably on the allegations in accepting allegations is true this is probably as pure a case you're going to see where there's an there's an of retaliation from the right to the bright natural permanent and the the right for it to seek the thank you thank you and nothing in their brief requires you to tell us anything in their brief oh they don't have and they find phrase in every unfortunately you know the arguments aren't developed by somebody on the holdings the only people appearing to jurisdiction when the court doesn't have original jurisdiction to anchor the case to the federal courts in the st place and that's exactly what we have here the district court was extremely patient with this plaintiff who was representing himself the plaintiff had the opportunity to file a complaint an amended complaint a nd many a complaint and each time the plaintiff failed to allege the citizenship of the each of the defendants which could establish diversity jurisdiction and each time the plaintiff failed to a claim under federal law now the factual basis for the complaint is that the original foreclosure was invalid because the original mortgage people's choice transferred that mortgage while it was in bankruptcy proceedings and didn't get authority from the bankruptcy court but this court just held in the mortgage foreclosure action itself just in september that the bankruptcy court did in fact give people choice the authority to transfer that mortgage forty nine of the new york's general business law in new york you can have a professional negligence claim unless you have privity with the attorney unless there is some exception for fraud or collusion and in this case the complaint doesn't tenants who were there and there's no he the plaintiff can't plausibly allege any exception because mr crinkle wasn't involved in the original mortgage foreclosure that happened in june two thousand and sixteen and his client that conduct this directed to consumers as a whole and not at individuals and in this case the allegedly improper foreclosure and the subsequent addiction proceeding is it isn't unique to these parties it's not directed at consumer generally and for that reason the plaintiff poso failed to state a claim under g p l three hundred and forty nine dollars so just to conclude there was no supplemental jurisdiction here because the court lacked the original jurisdiction and the plaintiff also in any event failed t foreclosure in the foreclosure action in two thousand and sixteen correct we asked this court to affirm the district court's decision granting dismissal of the underlying action as the district court had neither diversity nor federal question jurisdiction as this court may be aware this is the plaintiff's appellants rd attempt to undo a judgment of foreclosure and sale in a related district court foreclosure action commenced in two thousand and sixteen on an investment property which was later appealed in this court and is currently pending not content the plaintiff appellant roddie commenced an action in two thousand and seventeen under l p after the move for dismissal and the two thousand and seventeen action this was never appealed similarly in the instant action this court should affirm the district court's decision for the following reasons the pla ruddy despite the many chances provided by the district court because of his pro se status failed to properly plead diversity jurisdiction plaintiff appellate simply argues that because you stop your home l had diversity jurisdiction in the two thousand and sixteen foreclosure action it follows that he has diversity jurisdiction in this action this is not the case as no diversity jurisdiction was invoked by plaintiff ronnie regarding the citizenship appellee defendants lott limited liability members and limited liability partners despite the filing of the subsequent amended complaints and the guidance in the district court's order given by kogan reddy never played diversity of citizenship with any relevant provisions of the f t c only apply to the activities of a debt collector which is defined as any person who uses any instrumentality of interstate commerce with the principal purpose which is the collection of any debts or who regularly we're not served with the papers here based on the collateral estoppel from the two thousand and sixteen action and the fact that the two thousand and seventeen action already dismissed the f c claims with prejudice against appellee gustave home and margolin in weinreb law group the the claims made here in under this action was similarly fail asked to a law firm the vast majority of courts in this court have found that such an action to enforce an interest in real property does not qualify as that collection regarding the claims involving violations of the federal credit reporting act the district court was correct in its analysis rowdies claims pursuing to sixteen a one s to a and b as against appellee under sixteen a one s b one a plaintiff muscle ledge defendant is a furniture of information the defendant received notice of the consumer dispute from a consumer reporting agency and that the firm that acted willful or negligent in the noncompliance of that statute plaintiff has failed to plead any of the facts to show that the defendant was starving received any notice of dispute from any consumer agency or that any alleged harm or loss of credit resulted in say with regard to the additional arguments raised in the appeal regarding the bid price and that the plaintiff in the underlying two thousand and sixteen foreclosure action failed to name the st mortgagee the court must ignore those arguments because they were never and if they were never raised and were only raise st on this appeal if there's any questions i rest on the br