twenty eight which is the one that as you get mr thompson's abstract shows they're not just a representative but an employee and i just an employee a high level employee their director of labor relations to sit on the board however the the other part of the argument in law is that the code of federal regulations requires that amtrak maintaining the records of the us so that when a complaint comes  again according to forty five us section one fifty three as soon as mister according to section first q as soon as the complaint comes into the district court a copy of the petition sh the court was and under law should have contact of the board and because the amtrak maintains the records for the special board of adjustment the board would have has of contact that amtrak to receive those regular up the way any special board of adjustment is set up the special board is not in fact some separate agency that sits independent from amtrak is an intricate to hold a hearing to determine whether abstract had actual notice of the case this was based upon a letter from the national mediation board saying that they had gotten the records from abstract and transmitted it to the district court judge last night did not follow the order of the ninth circuit he restricted the briefing on the rematch and specifically whether the letter on i complaint and the district court correctly found it not be laid back on the rule fifteen because amtrak did not have any knowledge of either actual or constructive of the filing of mr thompson's original complaint within the period specified  to the record of the proceedings your honor under that under the statute amtrak is required if they are up to in a special board of adjustment or a public knowledge board for that matter before the national rebeled adjustment board they keep a record of the proceedings and the record of the proceedings is nothing more than the actual award and the party submissions to the neutral member of the board and track retains those records as in the natural course of their business what mr gomes argued was that the fact that the national mediation board ultimately submitted that record to the court establishes that amtrak had knowledge prior to the running of the period and specified and rule for him there was no evidence presented by mr thompson establishing that amtrak had knowledge of the original complaint the only thing that was submitted was a letter from amtrak excuse me from the national mediation board acknowledging that they had submitted the record the record shows that those records were submitted on april fifth which is more than six months after the running of the period specified in rule for him and in fact if the court looks at the record in the lower court the original complaint was filed on october seventh it was not served on the national mediation board or the united states attorney until the end of january that period and r but what occurred in that in the lower court initially was that mr thompson raised some questions about wanting to conduct discovery and before the court ruled on here's a request to conduct discovery the court ruled on amtrak's motion produce and you're honest again we submit and the records with which show that even even if there were arguably an identity of interest between the special board of adjustment and amtrak which there clearly is not the record shows  or amtrak's member of the board was served with the original complaint amtrak's first knowledge of the actual knowledge of mr thompson's action was when he filed his amended complaint and again  g for the sake of this argument only that the national mediation board advised amtrack of mr thompson's complaint there's no evidence in the record that mr that abstractly see that prior to february seventh in fact the inferences to be drawn from the facts in the record are that any constructive notice that amtrak received would have been after february seventh and in fact would have been after march sixteenth two thousand which is well statute of limitations should be affirmed additionally we believe that there is ample evidence in the record to support a dismissal for failure to state a claim a lack of subject matter jurisdiction because mr thompson failed to present any evidence that there was any so far the sky over emotions those row over their lives on the docket as far as on number thirty five on on down towards the end of the year two thousand this comes into play as far as discovery that should have been ordered in important thing to remember is the the posture of this case this is not a slip and fall case where the defendant needed to preserve evidence or had no idea a case was townsend's administrate of appeal they litigated this case before the special board of admission of adjustment in grieving and by sitting on the board they've had notice of this litigation for a long time the forty are you related to the board instead of amtrak but being a pro se planes have at the time you may not have understood that the statute again requires assume as mr thompson filed this with the sion the district court was required to contact the special board of adjustments to get the records this is an october well before the statue of limitations ran and well before and the start of the session for