unconstitutional i've got his complaint in front of me and i don't see where you are claiming that he claimed in the complaint filed into period of court that it violated state law his arrest violates state law and he argued in the trial court that fifty fifty five point one was preempted by federal law the trial court never reached that issue that was insecure court well the case is removed from superior court to federal court he argued in the federal court at his central district of california first a minute complaint here and i don't see anywhere where he throughout the pleadings in opposition summary judgment motions and argument to the trial court he argued at length we argued at length that fifty five point one zero was preempted by state law fifty five point one no mention at all in the complaint i don't recall i don't know i've looked i can't find and i don't see anywhere where he's alleged that the section is unconstitutional i would submit it's covered by the paragraph seven where he states that he was arrested for selling to an the district court stated i'm looking at the final the judgment granting the motion for summary judgment is that the  record pages thirty four through thirty six and the court at page thirty five finds that we're barred by law the case  the issue of the constitutionality thirty five point one zero is a very serious issue right under this municipal ordinance you cannot buy a nice and walk out of the store not commit a crime if you carry concealed on your person as the municipal code would essentially require you to let me hear you're saying gee the judge didn't rule in our claim and i don't mean the claim in here so you it's hard to criticize the judge ruling on it if it's not in the place well it was in the papers it was argued extensively the city takes the any feels on behalf of defendant and the tally city of los angeles to look like a little bit not that far down trying out that short ok i think the court is correct that i q factor is is that the series was never played in the complaint but i think even more fundamental than that is the question of whether plaintiffs even conceivably could challenge the constitutionality of this local ordinance in a state law damages claim for false arrest and on this point i think the statutes are quite clear it's quite really wants to decide t constitute the merits to you know i don't your honor i and i don't think the court can ok in the context of the state law damages claim for false arrest and i think the reason why the court can't is because officer in the city clearly have immunity from damages under government code a twenty one point six and a fifteen point two i think you want to see if you're going to be making that argument you'd better think about the grossman case  familiar with i'm familiar with the grossman case and i think in the grossman case the difference there was the constitutionality of the ordinance was challenged in one thousand nine hundred eighty three my now claim we don't have that before the court right now we're left with a state audiologist claim for false arrest that's that and i think that's a very key difference in grossman it was alleged that the arrest was unconstitutional because the ordinance was unconstitutional that's correct in our case it's alleged that the arrest was unconstitutional because of a lack of probable cause is that the difference well that's another difference to i guess i'm just giving appellants and the benefit of the doubt that you know whether in theory this could ever be raised in the context of this kind of claim and i think the answer is no but i think taking a couple steps back the court is correct what was alleged here in this complaint was it was an arrest that was not supported by probable cause well as they also a am not really clear on what the court's asking i mean i think the court's asking it is a have they adequately played it and i would say no well that's the question is that inadequate pleading it seemed in grossman even though it was a nine hundred eighty three what they were saying the fact that the officer is going to get immunity doesn't give immunity to the municipality if in fact there's an unconstitutional policy practice in the context of one thousand nine hundred three where there's no response yet superior or liability but we're talking about a state law claim and all the state law claims are governed by statute and by statute neither the officer or the city can be liable for damages even if you were to assume that this the ordinance was unconstitutional and that's why i'm saying the court doesn't well one does not need to and cannot reach this issue when i'm unconstitutional that you can't do that and then plaintiff needs to find an avenue to raise this challenge and my point is that this is not the appropriate avenue to raise this challenge i'm not really sure what would have been perhaps relief under state law suppose they had alleged he didn't but suppose he had alleged this arrest was unconstitutional because the statute itself is unconstitutional can he do that on a appeal both boils down to a simple issue you may talk to recover damages based on this theory the rest of to pursue nuclear purportedly unconstitutional city enacted ordinance my point being judge silberman is that whatever defect you may see in the complaint and failing to specify the gotten constitutionality specifically fifty five point one all it was a defect is that the fact that it's been waived by the city they know what the issue was that we were an appropriate avenue to address the constitutionality state law claims the that's why we originally filed this complaint in state court and they removed the constitutionality thirty five point one zero has not been