good morning frank roger on behalf of the appellant's police the court the first issue obviously to address is the threshold issue of whether the court has jurisdiction to hear the merits of the appeal once the court had asked for a supplemental briefing so that's what i'm going to first address i don't know what how clear i was in my supplemental brief but i i do think that the case law that i cited there is fairly dispositive of the issue and i do believe that the circuits case law in the united states supreme court case law is it is dispositive of the fact that this court does have jurisdiction under under two alternative theories the way this circuit appears to approach the issue as to appeal god of stay orders abstention stay orders had following the u s supreme court case law is that number one it is a final order in or twenty eight u s c nine hundred twelve it ninety one or in the alternative under the the issue of the clatter order doctrine and i think that would go to the third prong of the of that doctrine as to the review ability of whether it there is the ultimate review ability of the of the stay or that these type of stay orders are final orders not necessarily having to be appealed under the cloud order doctrine lockyer indicated based on moses age calling morrill hospital case refusal to dismiss under younger and therefore that was reviewable ultimately even if the state court proceedings finished even if the judgment was now entered in the federal court because at that point if there was a mistake made by the district court refusing to dismiss then that could be corrected by the court of appeals for i simply don't see how a stay order is going to be corrected in the final judgment from a federal court that has stayed the matter the stay what lockyer says i you look at the stay order you don't look at the proceed exists only what comes back to the federal court but whether the stay order itself effectively places the litigant out of out of out of court and it seems to me that it does there is no way i can conceive of that that stay order is going to be reviewable it's moot at the point that it's been stated now the state court has already proceeded what effect of relief can and candice court a court of appeals give to somehow remedy that in the cases that were cited there was relief that could be given easily because if the district court refused to dismiss under younger that that was a mistake that was a mistake and that that could then be corrected because suit somebody comes to a federal court they're expecting that to get it to no hearing both on the facts and the law and so just doing in england reservation is not enough at the term nation of the state court proceedings fall in effect if the state court finds which it is already not if there is not been a final judgment in this case but if it finds that they want to put in a receiver which they have done here if they find locally that the property was a nuisance that would preclude many of the claims also because for example if in fact there were a federal court is allowed to hear the takings claim and that's up now obviously before the us from court in the nikkei case but even due process which he to due process assuming we do have jurisdiction which is obviously an issue what about the merits of the case and i don't think this circuit's case law is very clear it's in the least to me it seems that there was some confusion left at the two main cases that i could find and i think were cited by by the court the court found that for purposes of the middlesex factors of purpose as a younger abstention there would have to be one other factor that this circuit added to that and whether it directly affected the state court proceedings or directly interfered with the state court proceedings and then in gilbertson this court or the on the court indicated no that's not the case it would be the practical effect of whether it somehow proceedings are not preclude from living gating younger just simply doesn't apply to non parties to the proceedings that came out of this on bond court in green versus tucson i did not see anything in  limited that principle and the district court in this case cited a unpublished district court decision by judge snyder and i believe that decision that was  cited indicated that there was a feel forgive me for a second judge snyder indicated that in that case the worth parties who were not parties to that state court proceedings and judge snyder in fact said just the opposite of what the district court in this case said judge snyder found had something wrong with that their procedure wouldn't that have an effect of interfering with the steak or proceedings regardless of whether they were directly part of named in a nuisance suit or and i didn't hear i truly ok i'm asking whether i'm going forward by any parties with the claims against the city would have been a factor interfere with the decision making process of the state court regardless of whether on the public nuisance issue it's a quasi in rematches and the only question really that the court decides in the state court is does this property affected we act as a nuisance it could it's a strict liability statute  all these constitutional defenses really wouldn't go anywhere so the first and claim in your complaint in my complaint indicates or argues that the city had used the wrong procedure in attempting to get hold of the hotel i mean that that does seem like it would have an effect on the state nuisance action i thought the first amendment claim was based more on the case in this circle serrano gas  versus morgan which basically says that if somebody uses petitioning and in minutes trade of agency or city and close in kind to that petitioning activity or speaking out it is let's say a city council hearing that there simply does not apply and i cited i believe in my brief a california supreme court case even though it's not cited by the circuit but i think it's persuasive to the effect that civil proceedings of the federal solution route simply doesn't apply so fine there's a fourth amendment violation the warrants defective some of the evidence is gathered effectively but that's not going to exclude that evidence from the proceedings in there maybe damages claim for it and that might be a personal allege disparate impact on persons of hispanic and and why and so i mean origin there were a lot of poor people who were living at this property and i understand and i'm sensitive to the city's concerns about the code enforcement issues but there were a lot of poor people here there was a certain procedural i thought really apparent behavior by the city moving out and closing the motel without an order by a court and this circuit has decided although i believe it's a circuit split nuisance a city investigated when onto the property without a warrant and that the argument was well doesn't matter because the city council had authorized their investigative to do so and it was a do since property therefore it did not require a warrant this circuit said even a property that's deemed to be a public nuisance requires under the fourth amendment to have a warrant unlike circuit say differently the fifth circuit says differently that the city council  by following its procedures and giving the authority to an investigator in effect is the substitute for a warrant but this circuits case law as it stands now when it conner is that the fourth amendment required that before they shut down that property issue i believe that the court was right in two requests supplemental briefing on the jurisdiction issue because i do believe jurisdiction as it is at play and more importantly that the court here lacks jurisdiction appellate review in federal court is very limited outside of the final judgment and that makes sense because you don't want piecemeal appeals and here obviously we don't have a final judgment and what's important here is that the district court has in fact retained jurisdiction over the district court case and has even went as far and as requesting a ninety day status reports from the parties on the progress of the state court action all of the cases that i saw we will review  of the younger abstention order and if so what relief could those parties get at that time yes i believe i believe you can at the end of the case review the propriety so we say in order was violations from the fourth amendment the fifth amendment to the fourteenth amendment substantive and procedural due process to the current of a contract clause claim in addition to their fair housing act claim so ruling on that half for the petition where the case would the case would come back to the district court after the after the state court has proceeded has result and  happen well i think that's i think that's the thing here your honor is that there is no prejudice with this with the substantial rowing no if i understand right unless we can review the younger sentient ruling now there's where we are in the district court case destroy the dam that is come out of the state proceeding at the point can week simply notify the state proceeding at that point ignore it i don't think you could notify the state proceeding but you but the point is that if i understand judge who does question the time to decide whether it was proper to abstain should be they should close the motel and plaintiff should be kicked out of their residence in the residence but that's that's precisely the point if it was in error to abstain why can't we look at that there right now rather than waiting months and months maybe several years while the state does its proceedings and then come back to the district court and then comes back up to us on the issue of whether or not they should have abstained in the first place why can't we do it now rather than two years from now because then you're running run the risk of inconsistent rulings between the what's going to happen in the state court in the federal court if you have if you're running parallel tracks of whether it were looking at whether the younger abstention was wrong that's the only issue that would be if you know on appeal if the younger of singeing was wrong then the petition gets you go forward in in district court and deciding issues of federal constitutional issues so the state fair friend there's still there's an extensive overlap here with the acorn issue with the federal court issues i just think there's that i think there's a the key is here that the court has retained jurisdiction and and allowed plaintiff to appellant come back on their damages claims that's where i think the distinction lies what's your view on the  a there was a denial of younger abstention and pullman abstention here i think the issue is is very similar because i think that plaintiffs are not effectively out of court because of the court retaining jurisdiction and stay in the damages case can own her and the children could they raise their their claims and in a state nuisance proceeding so they can they can and i think they're saying that they have a morning your honour's actually clark on behalf of the county of los angeles i know that the court had asked a specific question as to the application of younger in its review here i believe that the relief that's requested by the plaintiffs  important they are not only asking for damages as it relates to the one thousand nine hundred three and thirty six of four claims but also asking for an injunction to stop the closure of the motel and to keep the plaintiff from being roughly kicked out of their personal occupants that has already actually been it's already occurred in this case so your view as it relates to younger would effectively enjoined the state from using its own police powers i do believe that it has or will because the state has already effectively closed the motel and moved the plaintiffs out of their personal residence so if there was a review now where you found that abstention is not proper and injunction would somehow be allowed by the district court that order by the district court would enjoying the state action they would effectively ask them to rewind open the motel back and allow the plaintiffs back in their personal residence now we don't know even what the condition of the practical effect on the state issues and i believe based on the request that they give me the prayer that's asked for by the district court complaint which effectively asks the district court to enjoin the closure of the myth the motel to stop the closure of the motel and to allow plaintiffs to stay in their personal residence rather than moving them or victim them from the property would have a practical effect to do that it would true for all of the issues it raises their complaints for example to the extent they're raising a fourth and excessive force claim would that have a practical effect in joining the proceedings honestly on i don't know based on the facts that are presented now we haven't done any factual discovery in the case so based on the sort of limited pleadings that we have available to us it is unclear at this time if the new census declared on the property that it would have any of force and effect as to the fourth amendment seizure claim power of the city of palmdale that they do not have the power to of utilize their own municipal codes in order to ensure the safety of the occupants of the city and we have jurisdiction to decide that i don't think that the appeal i don't think you have jurisdiction to side the appeal i don't think that issue has been brought up by plaintiffs and is not before the court at this time unless you have any questions i only have four seconds so i think it very time it's a pleasure to be here today you have a few seconds left  very quickly your honor the case that i wanted you cite that judge fitzgerald had cited judge snyder's unpublished decision her decision telling the third parties which is the district court order says at page ten because younger abstention does not apply unless the federal claimant is a party in the state proceeding see benevides versus you thirty four f thirty twenty five eight thirty two ninth circuit one thousand nine hundred four that case was a firmed in the jambon decision of the green versus tucson city of tucson case that third parties are simply not limited by the younger abstention doctrine and i think there are two conceptual issues here one is the dismissal of the injunctive relief and the other is the stay of the damages claim to go forward in the third parties having a right at least to go forward on their damages claim quackenbush which took that its effect was present was precisely to surrender jurisdiction of a federal suit to a state court so even if it's a temporary surrender which it is on the damages claim in this case that's precisely a fin