next matter on our calendar is keepers incorporated verses city of milford thank you sixty b one motion mischaracterizing it as seeking relief based on a mistake or excusable neglect mistake or neglect inherently relates to conditions which are in existence at the time of the judgment but were  unknown or overlooked so you believe your entire will to relief under sixty be wrong no your honor sixty six dollars that's what we that's what we claimed in the district and why you would have to prove extraordinary circumstances correct not necessarily extraordinary circumstances the sixty six is a very broad catch all provision which and one of the reasons it's a broad catch up was it doesn't have the one year circumstance in this case and we've been clear going to change in the intervening law is not an extraordinary circumstance of what are your extraordinary circumstances well it was impossible to have raised the  circuit in the circuit to the decision i'm sorry you're saying you couldn't have raised it in the district court something i'll get to you in a moment but you didn't even alert the circuit court that there was a dispositive case pending in the supreme court in this case instead you waited sixteen months from the read decision to filing that doesn't sound as if you were acting in the kind of expeditious manner we would expect i mean you didn't act even within a year of rain i don't know why we would excuse the supplemental briefing was ordered after the read decision came out right the supplemental briefs the were limited to the one narrow issue that was certain was the question we asked but nothing prevented you from alerting us to the fact that there's now a supreme court decision that you thought helped your case the and i'm asking this only in terms of how do we find your delay in bringing this to the district court's attention until sixteen months after read in light of that scenario that i've just given you the  the attorney settling the case at that time felt that they did not have a procedural mechanism to to do that you know our rule twenty ha always allows you to bring matter to the court attention and we we routinely get a flurry of twenty eight letters right before arguments have to the supreme court issues addresses eventually after the supreme court this decision i think there's another concern though that i have that that perhaps goes deeper than this i'm not sure how to read is even applicable to the judgment you procured from discord i mean looking at the judgment the court very noted that front of me that you were not appealing the ruling that posting up was upheld except as to people who do not manage control or operate so that will thing was not appealed that was no longer an issue in the case you were only challenging the posting requirement it issues pertaining to passive owners and officers but it wouldn't be passive owners and officers who did not manage control or operate in light of your forfeiture a waiver of that issue and the court noted there were no such person so the whole claim was moot so the judgment that this court issued w basically to say that the only thing you were claiming any more was moot how were these extraordinary circumstances that warrant you opening up the district court's judgment when you didn't appeal the parts of the judgment that read could possibly be applicable to because the has a read case then in existence at the time the pool was taken at the time the the the district court was ruling on this case certainly that's something that it save the court there is a decision by the supreme court that prompts us to want to file for their papers mean that's that's the problem i have been seeing your cases triggering extraordinary circumstances if you want to explain to me why that should concern me i'm happy to hear well commentators of us have based and targeted expression because it was based on categories of speech and that required strict scrutiny even though the onus and nothing to do with the message that was being conveyed by it was a sign ordinance or whether the town disagreed with sixteen where the statute imposed record keeping labeling and inspection requirements on producers of sexually explicit materials and that although that seems benign enough not really directed to the  expression it was that was that it was felt to be content based and subject to strict scrutiny so read does apply to this adult entertainment vote oriented entertainment field contrary to the  that they were out of time and that they had weight issue which is a solid but the other way to determine that they didn't the standards for all sixty emotions there's four of them st you have to have highly convincing evidence to support your motion number two you under hardship against the opposing party in this case the city and then even if you meet all of those standards then you have to show extreme hardship or extraordinary circumstances that's what the court cases requi directly on point and if i could judge his question about that very issue free speech coalition from the rd circuit doesn't say my opposing counsel says it says it says quite the opposite in fact every case from the supreme court down says follows the right prior precedent rule and under that prior precedent rule the supreme court says that if we have a line of cases that directly to the case that bar even if that line of cases seems to be undermined by  a secondary effects case so therefore we're not going to get in that we don't have to resolve the question about whether forty years of secondary affects decisions and what they said doesn't apply read applies to this get close to a year or more than a year that is not a reasonable time that's the p r c harris case from this court as well as the duane reed case that we cited in our brief the rd element is you have to show it's the movement now to show an absence  supposed sixteen month delay under the analysis of whether this is reasonable or unreasonable delay under sixty six dollars i don't think sixteen months is is the is the is the correct time from the focus on the sixteen months was from june two thousand when read was decided to october two thousand and sixteen when the sixty six motion was filed in actuality i believe that the relevant timeframe was eleven months from this court's decision in two november two thousand and fifteen to the filing of the sixty six motion in october two thousand and sixteen that's eleven months not one of those the the cases cited by the defendant they all tend to say that more than a year is going to be viewed as being on reasonable but actually it was it was less than a year so i think when you don't have a specific timeframe governing six to be the triggering date rather than read read the whole thanks for your argument so why and once you know that there is a supreme court decision that supposedly helps you why is that the trigger day had a twenty page a letter been filed i think maybe from that point my point is one more looking at what's what's a reasonable timeframe for you to of acted i'm not sure why our decision on the claim he were originally brought on appeal is the trigger date it would seem to me it would be brilliant but i think the way the it was looked at it as a practical matter is that the dice have been rolled so to speak or waiting for a decision and there was nothing left i don't think that helps you that suggests that well we'll see if we win on series one and if we don't we're going to home this other thing in reserve and we'll try it but that's that doesn't seem to say to you