applying a motion to dismiss standard it erodes the make inferences that were inappropriate in the defenders favorite could go to that particular argument and that the court should note that both the lower court and operated on the premise that the july twenty fourth complaint was the actual complaint when it was in fact the october twenty fourth complaint so ill assessing both in the summary judgment standard review and the motion to dismiss review of course review is in our says per se because there is no complete in the case so if the allegations that were in the october they amended complaint on october twenty fourth teen if they are have been filed until i get that it wasn't learn from that deposition in july twenty sixth in the e mails the nature of this case the village of the churches in the first came down to the nature of the wrongdoing in the level of intent at that particular point when that complaint the complaint was filed the  writings even they save in this case there's no evidence of the tortious interference but out of that abundance of ruhleben caution we did believe at that particular point in time that we had necessarily the specific information evidence wise to meet this standard that it was an intentional wrongdoing on the part of best because we had not had an access to either of us access to any information whatsoever but no but for purposes of the discovery rule question is not whether you had enough information to clear rule or laughing at that point it was just whether you knew enough to start the two year clock under which she would do whatever appellate is because of the october fourteenth october twenty fourth a complaint at that particular point that's after the august twenty fourth things that your limitations because a clearly our position is that what did we know what should we have known should have been initially understand what we're testing your answer you said that complaint wouldn't have been enough even if it had been filed in july i don't think that that can bet that stitch well it took that it was we get to know you knew what you knew in may when all the events happened we did is park southern all of a sudden is just placed by the district and your client all of a sudden is displaced by the best and the system on purportedly on an emergency basis and it seems to have a little bit of a bad with that's correct that's what you know in may that's correct and based on that with no opportunity for discovery you can get yourself to the point you were in october where you have a complaint that spells out run the step that can't be exactly right to the extent is treated the amended complaint as if it had been filed i'm so glad  what the district court given was to say that the only argument that capital services raised with regard to why the settlement issue is have not run is that its knowledge of the information available to it changed between when the injury occurred and july twenty sixth seen when capital services took the deposition d h cd employees can be of the district court did not use the october twenty four thousand complaint to do anything other than to reject that argument to say that that argument is belied by the fact that nearly two years earlier when it filed the amended complaint against capital services as you get against the district of columbia it in fact relationship between the fact of injury and the alleged conduct by fest which is that the entering into emergency contract between best engineering of them suppose i'm wrong about step two of the district contract with this apartment complex for a period that preceded capital services contract and it was ousted by capital services in march of twenty fourteen that's was a competitor capital services for property management services in general and at this property in particular a mere two months later when the district of columbia took over ownership of this property is installed best through an emergency contract capital services have knowledge that best to took over management of the property that's in it complaint now the legal standard and why i started with that is as cap judge has mentioned it's not a question of actual notice it's a question of inquiry notice was there a duty to further investigate in your chest that you proposes some insight into what that particular standard means that cites those same three elements and it applies d c law it's a legal malpractise case and it asks the same question what's the evidence of wrongdoing and the court concluded that based on the fact that the plane  understanding of the practical negative implications of the defendant's conduct it was an inquiry in a practical negative implications i don't know that means in this context surely there's nothing negative or suggesting wrongdoing just when d c says i need a management company take over you've been doing a long time take over that surely you don't think that major client of their son and your client had done something wrong i don't think it means that my by the exercise of reasonable diligence the plaintiffs should have known of the injury its cause and some evidence of wrongdoing the thing that capital services takes issue with is that actual contract between the district you might not want to emphasize these out these allegations but i think you may need them and they may be helpful to you but there's a little bit more to it right part of it is that when the contract was shifted from vested to capital services it was lawfully gone because of dissatisfaction with how vester had performed and then when the contract was shifted back from capital services to vest that was done unlawfully because there was a term contract and a was breached mid term i  concede that there was which mike you know doesn't paint your client in the best possible way but it seems like it's at least reason to think that there might be something inappropriate going on i think th circumstances in the level of dissatisfaction that was expressed by the various entities that owned the property and were hiring property managers is certainly a factor that that goes to whether capital services should have had or by the exercise of reasonable dil e should have known the potential evidence of wrongdoing on tests of those facts make clear because that's the test the facts that you cited make clear that messed up  notice a duty to because again your task is that those facts gave rise to evidence of wrongdoing well i'm trying to make clear that's where that's where i think we're having the discussion is how those facts get to run i get how they get to at least allegations of wrongdoing against d c they are a player i just have filed the same of is according to the test in d c some evidence of wrongdoing is enough information to that through the exercise of free simple diligence capital services should have known of number three some when she says there is an obscure relationship between the injury and the conduct and i understand exactly what you're asking which is what about this particular conduct should capital services have no time well if you look at the cases to which the discovery rule applies there are cases in which there is for example justifiable reliance by the plaintiffs on the defendant's professional skills such as in the context of legal or medical malpractise or other cases in which there is a latent deficiency that the plaintiff can't have discovered so for example in a construction contract if someone built a building you don't know we took five years later that something went wrong obviously the discovery rule applies in this context but we don't have that obscure relationship here capitol services knew that vesta and her into an agreement with d c that had been the property manager before that there was a level of dissatisfaction sort of a problem of their theory is that you are the latent efficiency this as well that they didn't know until later and so they just thought lucky day for a vast amount d c got tired of his prior folks and came and took a over this apartment complex and then call the one who have been running the show for ok i agree with whoever mentioned earlier that you can take notice of the july twenty fourth you cannot complain in the d c superior court and it's not heard of this record but if you do you will see that in paragraph seventeen through nineteen of that complaint capital services complaints not just about the district of columbia but specifically about the contract between that staff and the district of columbia so even if we're just looking at the july date and even if you don't find somehow the allegation th already alleged very talked about yes we had an emergency contrary yes but it is it is it is doesn't have anything it is proof in the public record that you get that capital services had that knowledge at that