nearly month back in kate was excluded from pains and violation of the secret provision and you do seem to request compensatory education as part of your one marry and option look at least in your memorandum but not in the off to make a determination without any factual record to determine precisely what he received in the way  for hearing was going to be held on the twenty third day so they don't look like those days may shift but once they have the hearing do they usually get decisions out within ten days or does that sometimes shift as well you know they're they're almost always within either the statutory evidence in this record that he and kate is improving because of her and despite the setback or whatever and hypothetically you could have a case where although his mother could still be an open question and it is a violation of the state provision that's one issue whether he gets compensatory education as a on the record we need now the type of educational assistance that the child has receiving as temporary place is different than what he was receiving in the original place but we have no idea whether on this record there's been any harm to the child and that's why i thought that whole question of huber bail you're going to go back on the case  shouldn't then he had to go ahead and award your client compensatory education but this of someone determined whether that was warranted there's two forms of denials before this will in that respect that's the basis of argument is to court and dismissed the whole case just said no p i and and i thought you were an ongoing litigation for the district court right summary judgment filings addressing compensatory education so i'm kind of confused as is it is is it your point just tell me if i got this wrong that you think what would that be your position is statutory text only talks about statehood as dealing with the physical ok educate physical location for his education of the child and it added here to the ip that that that goes with with that school and  do you have a case that says stay put also includes not a magic declaration of your right to compensatory education and will figure out the nitty gritty of that as the case really that must necessarily be interpreted as also including a request for compensatory education ye really it is a theory and that it does no good to put the kid the sorry the child back in the school if the child is now to two months behind you have to sort of have some very fast and a very educational or or or you just saying that what should come with an order to put the child back in the school is a declaration of your legal right to compensatory education the content of which is to be determined later the liar here this reason and other reason all manner of reasons you would be able to appeal that determination i was a little worried that we would be getting ahead of the district court's current summary judgment proceeding if we were to declare you have someone title meant to it there's no compensatory education obligation that would go to cover up whatever may have been missed during that forty five day suspension assuming there is an agreement that the interim place was appropriate which in this case there wasn't  stay put on that time period after the forty five days a lapsed and before he was returned but he has a right to stay put determines whether he has a right to come into three educate a legal right to that story education have to prove it have legal theory that you would be announced to us that he has no he had no right to be put back in school for those additional days because you've requested a hearing officer process it if you are right about that then he would have no right to commence authority education for those additional days i'm not actually sure that's true we haven't made that argument before that i thought that's what you just answered to me about that interim time period after the forty five days before his return to school let turns on would apply but haynes his argument was even if typically statement would require the student to her term given the circumstances of this case there are compelling reasons to allow us to finish the administrative process that was ongoing rather than immediately return him just what the district court decided was there may very well be a stay put lation but given the circumstances he thought there was a compelling reason to not a war that area injunction allowed the administrative process that was going on going to finish it and the matter of days and then that left open the question of whether there is a kind of story education legal right to keep him out of school until the hearing officer ruled correct so there's kind of two basis for our claim want is that a different version is they actually should have been applied but the district court didn't actually apply that person  us yes that issue of whether he had any state quite right to go back into school correct right and you've asked us to say he did not if you're going to rule on the merits correct when i'm just trying to understand this and say and if you are correct then his and his legal right to any compensatory education for days forty six forty seven forty eight evaporates yes if he was not entitled to  wish we would argue is not before us before you is whether the district court err it in denying the motion for a preliminary injunction and that greatly has no impact in terms of whether to have this be a man under your voluntary association theory you have to not only have said we won't do it again you have to i don't have the phrase exactly right the supreme court but there have all the effects of your position discussion and we are not arguing that the underlying claim is necessarily moot because keynes let him back into school were arguing that the request of preliminary injunction ordering hanes to immediately allow them to return to school redressed and the defendant is not disavowing his legal does the opposition but in fact in the very cases continuing to litigate and asking the court to decide its legal compensatory education merely because he was in an interim alternative cation setting now again if there's a dispute about whether that interim heard of educational setting was appropriate that would be a different question and that would be true reasonable expectations of what may occur in the future and we have a case part of way that actually in the circuit that holds them you're promising a brief is not good enough for voluntary associations so if we haven't seen that but if would not be able to establish voluntary sensation because all you have here as i understand is your promises and a brief i don't think that's all we have i think we also have a very sad fact and scenario that brought us to the luminary injunction motion so it's not just a matter of saying we can reasonably dissipate that and pay will commit another violent act is cool which by the way he hasn't since this all happened which i believe has evidence that he won't necessarily do it again hopefully but also that he would be subject to a forty five day of a move that these school would then decide that he could not return at the end of the forty five days and in doing so not be able to secure a hearing officers order before the forty five days expired it's not just hearing officer or mediately and then cancel the later if things work out perhaps but i don't know that that is perhaps or you could have we could have i think it would have been premature to do so one is we didn't know november seventh when the forty five days  began or even necessarily in early december when we started having conversations about the potential need for a change in place and we didn't know that when january thirty first arose the school would you know just ended at least not want to allow the students to return based on the request a hearing as soon as that forty five day period is are at it without knowing how things were actually go traffic or undermine the rule no not necessarily because at the very least let's say we got found ourselves in the same situation what mazola call those arguing is and then therefore argued for factor is kind of on the side of pains rather than on the side of missile coal or the student and that very well would be within our control and we absolutely would do that because as you can see this is kind of serious bodily injury for forty up to three five days they did that the statute says they can potentially hearing officer for an extension of that for a five day removal for an additional up to forty five days based on a concern that allowing the student you're going to say the plain text of the statute allows the child that way for more than forty five days and suppose i agree with you and the question is if you have a motion pending placement the decision by the school to extend those where the five days are all you need faster this case that frankly i have not seen in my ten years of practice as a special education attorney in d c this school has never seen i believe i wanted to pick up on the conversation he was having with was in counseling but their position about whether or not seeker applies during disciplinary proceedings we actually think that because haynes sincerely believes that sacred doesn't apply that there is a different that he interacts with other people those who start his house we think that there is a likely that this could happen again and when it does change is going to take the same position that is that statement does not apply when their despair proceeds in the student has been place