opponents from seeking review of their alleged due process violations in my argument this morning i would like to reserve fifteen minutes for rebuttal opportunity but i'd like to make three major points to begin with and that is the district court s in that case this court examined whether or not the notices that were provided to the the mr schneider were good in fact meet the process requirements and the court concluded it did not and that is because the notices did not vehicles this court found that as mr schneider's vehicle was not either wrecked and banned and dismantled or an operative at peak county of san diego had no authority to destroy the vehicle that's the same situation in this case  in fact the california vehicle code does not make it illegal to store vehicles on private privately owned property so therefore the notices that were given to the opponents with regard to the their transit bus were defective fa misinformation given to the person who must act react to the notice under the and under the wing versus hanover bank the that the notice doesn't meet the standard with which is required for giving the party who must react adequate information i'd like to turn first now to the argument that the district court committed an error and it's the standard of review with regard to summary judgment motions the district court found that the there and again the city defendants offered no evidence that he was there for any other reason than to supervise the tagging of vehicles that were on that property the second issue goes to the condition of the bus and that is again is in conflict as to whether or not there is no i'm sorry there is no conflict conflict in the evidence as to whether or not the bus was abandoned it was not abandoned it was not wrecked and it was not dismantled the question then was whether or not it was operable there was there a declaration submitted  opposition to the summary judgment motion which showed a substantial investment in the bust that had new tires that it did operate that it was driven around the parking make sure that operated correctly that only the only condition that the hearing officer found third point i'd like to make is that there was no bar to the amendment of the complaint to bring in the towing defendants in this case this case was before this court for approximately two years before the district court you and mr zimmerman said you know you people are taking my property in violation they want the court recently granted issued an order allowing the videotape of the hearing to be introduced as evidence and in this appeal if the court careful anybody could have to could have told the vehicle what he was doing here on the on the relationship depilatory of the o t c a contract with the city of oakland and the ability of these sub contractors to take his vehicle that that was the argument and there's no evidence presented by the t misrepresentation here and if i direct you to page six ten fifteen it's clear that they've never attempted to register the bus in fact m ordinance if you don't own to be a call i don't see how you can sue the city for something that you don't own well is that the law that non registration equals not ownership yes that would be our position wrote him a number of he sued goldie taylor individually and the district court says that there would be no individual liability one error i think do that the statue of limitation was stayed i don't believe that's the law i think that the law basically says if the defendant doesn't know and if the defendant is greatest that there would be no stay and i see no with or even where the action should have been staged by the district court obviously the district court found that there was knowledge a is made under rule fifty nine and the original appellate decision covered rule fifty nine in this case and then he just decides to unilaterally withdraw that motion does he get the benefit of the state his motion did nothing but mirror the fact that he was unhappy with the district court's opinion i suggest to the court that he was aware of the issue a rule fifty nine commish former  decision by this or that and therefore he should not get the benefit of a stanley and decide when he wants to withdraw a motion that shouldn't have been filed to begin with i think that covered my presentation to the level of a constitutional violation as we were preparing to appear today i was brought to mind of a literary passage of all things wherein the  narrator at the beginning of a long journey finds himself in a dark wood and tells us that the straight way that the straight way was lost and i believe that this is a case where it's very easy to be caught up in the details and the facts and lose sight of what is the ultimate issue in this case which is where the point is given sufficient notice and were they giving and given a meaningful opportunity to be heard in that regard as matthews instructs us all that is necessary is that the prestigious be tailored in light of this the decision to be made to the capacities and circumstances of those who are to be h to ensure that they are given a meaningful opportunity to present their case as to the defendant respectfully submitted the record here shows beyond dispute the clintons were given a meaningful opportunity to present their case and that they current registration is not an acceptable or legitimate basis for the city to use these and vehicle there are two two points on that your honor the city that the bus wouldn't start but the bus had been sitting in a place for some time that he viewed that as the hearing officer as evidence of abandonment and he testified to that in his deposition but i think more to the point the city  charter city is entitle to declare what constitutes a nuisance and in this in this particular setting they have said unregistered vehicles that are not moved inside will be police supplemental excerpt of record page ten in footnote two they talk about the definition of nuisances as possibly being in conflict with the definition in its state law and the point that have been raised was that unregistered vehicles are not considered a nuisance under state law and so therefore if the city declared unregistered vehicles as being a nuisance then they would therefore be in conflict with the state court said no that's not the case that because of the remedy that's available for them which is to put them inside there's not a conflict that was not raised initial appeal of this case and that takes the long way around by saying it is evidence of vandeman which may qualify as a nuisance and you can have a vehicle that doesn't have current tags on it that's not sitting in a field with grass growing through it you have a brand new mercedes sitting in somebody's driveway that doesn't have current license plate and i don't think anybody would automatically assume that resale use it in the driveway is  clear here that the bus which is the subject of this lawsuit that three of the floor without question applied it was indeed dismissed felt there were the testimony is that the brake lines had  the citation to the record is the same one thirty three to one thirty six and also one ninety one ninety four it was to the mind of the hearing officer was abandoned in that it would not start and it had been moved for at least six week and that there had was no registration which are new standards that this is a concern to your honor so as a matter of notice the issue of registration which is which is how this issue comes up in this in this appeal don't know that it really has no bearing one way or the other because on the face of the document that the plaintiffs received it's very clear that they had a reasonable notion of what they were watched the videotape the other day and and i guess the concern comes from and i think the sergeant was sincerely trying to do his job it did seem a little the items that i mentioned before that the brakes were evidently dismantled and that the bus would not start which is also is evident on the video tape itself so there are alternative grounds for updating the bus that appear on the face of the notice of abatement beyond the registration so again that the registration is not i would have noticed in for purposes of due process i don't know is necessarily a dispositive point with respect to the wearing of two hats there are there's no question that the hearing that is an issue here is a pretty deprivation hearing the bus was not until after that hearing took place this court has held in the context of an employment terminations where the city defendants would contend that the potential deprivation is considerably more severe than the bust that we're talking about here the court has held that failure to provide an impartial decision maker at the deprivation stage of itself does not create liability so long as the decision maker at the post deprivation hearing is an impartial n even of bias on the part of the post depravation decision makers so under nine circuit law that the fact that there may have been the possibility that sergeant white was wearing two hats which we would suggest and emphasize that there's no evidence in the record that the potential wearing of two hats manifested itself in in any sort of overt bias at the hearing itself as that have meant that the bus would not have appeared as if it was so low to the ground and had flat tires and would have been abandoned it even the more interesting issue perhaps of sergeant white's potential bias as well as the issues of notice all of these could have and should have been raised at the administrative level and they were not there was no evidence entered into the record at all with respect to those those kinds of concerns and then there was as i mentioned before no appeal of those as well so under the i can case it seems impossible that plaintiff can contend that they were deprived of due process based on these very discrete distinct charged with and that there was a remedy a penalty that was imposed on the d that was probably under the initial initial code section rather than the one that he was eventually found liable under so that the court concluded that while there was no notice that he might be subject to this penalty because he was not actually liable under the concession that he was eventually found guilty on earth that makes sense that's obviously not the situation here the situation here is it's been the prosecution or the nuisance abatement action has continued from beginning to end under the authority of the same code section there so there's not that prob penalties that are applicable to the to the initial ordinance  have a proper owner or looks like it was not proven and therefore it's abandoned that argument was never made to the district court below the video tape shows that there was no testimony taken at the hearing if the review of the videotape shows there are two and a half minutes spent basically circling v again the argument that in precut probation hearing there is no due process violation if there might be bias or conflicting roles on the part of the hearing officer i think that's absolutely absurd in this case it was with roe versus locke in the supreme court's president would be applicable to this case not the city of berkeley case and it would be that the person had anything to do with the initial decision to take the decision which would be on review then would be  from having been a hearing officer in this case and i think that violates the supreme court's precedent and which oversees rock'n and therefore the summary judgment granted by the district court in this case must be reversed hearing procedures and on the nose procedures again i'd like to emphasize that there was never any finding regarding the condition of the bus the information regarding the brake lines was provided by a p s t hainan who was there to record the vehicles that were taken which shows why it's basically  to record the vehicles that were going to be scenes aren't accounts property so you had a police service technician recording information that was used by the city of oakland to prove that the bust was in fact in operable when in fact it is not i mean the declaration thousand the your honor and in that section it says notwithstanding the requirements for registration any privately owned person may store i said this subdivision does not apply to any motor vehicle stored in privately owned