the legal fluidity of the order part of the the issue here is the that it was error for the defendant's version of events to be taken  not specifically raised in the response brief and what if any argument has she preserved as to the village if the of of the diction order we know she didn't raise the hundred twenty day limit below  what was her what was her basis for saying that the fictional letter was invalid she well for a number of reasons one she states directly that it was used for two different evictions and although she did not raise the hundred twenty days directly she did attach the the orders them selves and it is clear from the orders that it was only entered and september of two thousand and eight after that point it was never entered again it was almost universally failed to give the district some selves to a certain extent where in the affidavit some of the sheriff's deputies they they state that ex parte means no expiration it's almost as if they're anticipating this being an issue  official validity in the hundred twenty day expiration that obviously was not true luck if anyone can be faulted with that regard and i certainly am not saying anyone can be it would be the would be clear to them that the letter which had been recertified in april was necessarily in that light it should have been clear to them because it was over one hundred twenty days past the fact whether or not they were put on notice that there was a problem with its validity and she pointed this out during the eviction as far as the condominium associations roll and their property managers although they they had retained counsel to proceed with the eviction they were the ones that told their attorneys to initiate it it's very clear in the e mails from michael blum that he told the lawyers to proceed asap and it's a official validity despite the the problem with the the dates and the the fact that ms or addict contacted the sheriff's department directly there's also the issue that the trial court in the state court gave miserables it possession back on her motion on june fifteenth two thousand and nine the court ruled that the  it gave her possession back and so the the hell is should be a stop from raising any sort of argument that direction itself was a proffer going to their qualified immunity defense there's a proof to prong analysis here which can be viewed in either sequence but essentially comes down to whether their conduct violated the constitutional right and whether that right was clearly established at the time of the violation here obviously of the fourth amendment claims that the missouri dick is a regular is raising were established at the time the sheriff's deputies were on notice of them and as far as whether their conduct violated the constitutional right the defendants rest their justification for their manner of entry sorrily on their claims that when they with regard to the excessive force claim with respect to the the manner venture e and that the defendant's claim that the door was unlocked that they knocked and announced and that when no one answered entered with their guns drawn this is directly contradicted by mr addicks testimony in which she states that the door was was locked she never heard any knocking and that the sheriffs just first eviction she was crying hysterically that they suffered from losing their family's belongings all of this happened on the day of their son's eighth grade graduation and mr mr stated in his deposition that it took an emotional toll on his wife and that as a result she would experience chest pains and panic attack like symptoms these are all stated  is ition did she get any medical care she did not run that's although that's a factor to consider it's not required for for i e d that she do so but there is a question of fact with what is in the record as to whether she suffered emotional damages and she states in her response brief and that the the day was one to remember but for all of the wrong reasons it perhaps requires some reading into but it it's pretty clear that from that they were in that day looking forward to their son's eighth grade graduation and now every time that they remember it it brings back the trauma of the some awful addiction and i just want to make sure i just have the times right had she gone through fiction proceeding seven times before it was approximately six or seven however those cases are distinguishable in a number of ways one just being part of an eviction proceeding her addiction lawsuit is different from actually being physically knowledge that the order was not valid the officer executed a case leave out of order the order did not make the offer to deny make any verbal threats or shocking behavior the female officer escorted flaying up to the living room and another february twenty ninth two thousand and nine the clerk would not have stamped the order unless the judge ordered it in the office to follow the right procedures after receiving that order plans have provided no evidence to support the assertion that the officers knew works off c on so many offers you get a bundle like that from the clerk's office with a stamp seal it's an indication to them that it's gone through the proper procedures and channels is it typical for the eviction unit to inforce orders that have two different date did not announce their presence it's only in the record as far as the evidence that the plaintiff did not hear them announce their presence there they have with them a representative from the condo association he also have  with probably some movers to help move out they have other civilians that may be present there and so the office through the weapons because there was no response the door was unlocked and they don't know who's behind the door and as the evidence in the record shows us pro e when no one has responded they have to take the family out or whoever else is in there and so they do their weapons once they saw that miss the plaintiff and her husband one arm and here informed them that she didn't think this was a valid order so they contacted their lieutenant which lieutenant told them that we had nothing in our record to show that  it wasn't valid so the lieutenant told him to continue additionally there is no excessive force excessive force here it's a method by miss cirrhotic that the officers did not touch or they did not comply with that she did not provide evidence or citations to her legal conclusions that were in her statement of facts to support her allegation that the officers  knowledge of this invalid or or that the officers did anything wrong as far as not knowing that the door was unlocked or the door was locked therefore we asked that this court there's no other view was correct and should be affirmed when he ruled that the plaintiff had presented no evidence whatsoever of any of the elements of an i e d claim against either defendant first there was no evidence of any outrageous conduct outrageous conduct as the court is aware requires conduct on the part of the perpetrator that is so extreme beyond all possible bounds of human decency conduct that's intolerable in a civil society that the average member of the community upon seeing it would scream outrageous in the instant case first marriage had been the property manager of this property for a mere eleven days prior to sending the matter in its entirety to the condo associations lawyers that document is set forth in his in the record at our eighty seven fifty two counsel for the plaintiff referred to it ten generally in his argument when he returned when he articulated that mr bloom asked the sheriff or ask their former law matters but the sheriff attempted to evict mr reddick on january sixth but for some reason the prior management company let her stay without getting her to sign a lease please let me know if a new of action or placed with the sheriff immediately we don't see  had been evicted immediately regain possession of property or proud of promise that she would sign a new lease she was tendered aloon new lease by the prior management company not by first marriage and they indeed offered her a lease was three hundred dollars last year which she had been previously pain she had agreed to sign the lease but then ultimately when the lease came there was never a lease executed like mr bloom from first marriage to try to number of occasions to to present her with the lease knocks on the door the door was never open while she alleged that that lease was invalid or incomplete or inaccurate or something to two things in that regard if i'm a writer first of all that argument was never raised before second of all there is no evidence in the record that she ever responded to mr bloom she ever said mr bloom the lease that i've been tendered has the wrong number of individuals i have a family i believe are families of five the lease was  there been for five that would have been changed to five it was in the in the first merits interest to have this problem solved have the matter of put to bed there's no outrageous conduct and similarly your honor so there is no evidence that support any of the other elements of the id he declaimed whether in intent to harm her nor that she was indeed damage to the extent it's compensable under and intentional infliction of emotional distress claim to respond first to some of the issues raised by the counsel for the defendant sheriff's deputies first of all regarding the qualified immunity defense there are questions as to the knowledge the knowledge as to whether or not the sheriff's office is required to check the validity of the the order of possession and the defendant's include in their own exhibits with their lieutenant upon from the sheriff's office his affidavit paragraph seven says that the supervisors are required to check the validity of the of the order so that raises the question why this this order in particular wasn't caught when it was asked expiration and when mr adic had called the sheriff's office to state you know that this order was being reused after already being used in the different eviction regarding the certification stamp it's not the same thing as when a judge stamps an order and enters a when a clerk certifies an order it's not the the judge entering anything it's basically someone handing the cleric and order in the clerk saying yes this is an order and stamping it it's a much different thing and then regarding the the qualified  immunity defense there are there are questions about and these are in the record in the deposition transcripts that the defendants included themselves so as far as the manner venture e and as managers there are questions of fact regarding the issue of the lease and misery tick does raise in her response brief that she had problems with that one of which being that it had the wrong number of had included as an exhibit and to their office summary judgment brief did indicate that she was willing to pay the association on a month to month basis interestingly in  affidavit of barbara austin which who was one of the four members of custodian court and which the defendants included as an exhibit to their summary judgment motion she mentioned that the the lease they were tendering was a month to month lease so there there are a number of questions of fact regarding that issue and those communications i have with respect to  addicks emotional distress and even with respect to her susceptibility to stress and the defendant's knowledge of it there's also a question of fact there as she stated during her communications regarding the lease how this how she was under stress and so there's a question of fact in her deposition transcript as to the defendant's knowledge of her susceptibility and the fact that she was under stress issues of fact that render summary judgment inappropriate there and finally regarding the i a d count against the condo and property managers there are issues of fact regarding the communications between and the case will be taken under advisement and i'm going to take a five minute break don't you think we need