like to address some of the issues that were brought up in in the city's answering brief and the st issue i would like to deal with is the procedural due process claim but i do think in some sense that important claim here for the constitutional standpoint and the city is brought up the issue now that cell counts so i guess if you can see yes right that's correct i could not see the court before you get into  w there's a factual question i have is not clear from the briefing sure and the question is does your client mr patel allow no i'm guess truckers their trucks on the property but that the majority of the truckers are truckers who come and stay at the property and then store their trucks out to properties but the majority are but there may be some yes and others so when i read the complete it was kind of reliving the drugs from both categories wrong on your property i and i and that's how i understand it your honor but i think to once again the majority of the truckers are people who have stayed p at page eighty eight subsection d is quote because of the motels easy access to the promote a freeway and a large parking lot the motel is popular with truckers so  that was and then that was even in the very beginning when the c p was granted there was an understanding that the motel would be used for truckers coming there and parking their trucks and i think what we've alleged is that from  ninety six until the adoption of the emergency ordinance d in january of twenty i believe it was eighteen and then the interim ordinance in april th seen that the longstanding custom in usage was that the truckers were allowed to store their trucks on the property there never been any problem for the patel's at that point and so one of our contentions is that certainly that custom in usage goes a long way in interpret in what that bank which would be very well known of course you would scream court due process case that it's akin to somebody who has a cause of action in state court and that cause of action is a due process interest that can't be extinguished without due process the same with you two torie procedures and so our contention is clearly that we have a right to appeal i don't think that any way a contention that the city is making that we don't have that right that when we raised that the very inception of the case at the time we filed the complaint i filed it what is called an england reservation which i'm sure the court knows but just briefly under england versus louisiana state board of medical examiners so no we are not raising the due process interest argument and before the state courts with respect your honor to the the issue of what controls here whether in fact gretz decided but it was based on logan logan decided was that terry detailer does not have any application where you are claiming where the party is claiming that the actual procedures themselves are defective that they unilaterally pick the hearing officer they pay the hearing us or they're doing it on a regular basis it's the same hearing officer and that raises that least at a minimum an issue o so so the takings claim i i would just indicate of course the decision allows us and the federal court that there was an issue about rightness number one we have if the court will look at page seventy three of the volume is how the ordinance would be applied to the particular property and in that particular case i think what we have is at least th hearing on wednesday before the court and there's a motion pending to dismiss my appeal of the of the ticket because of the fact that we had  nevertheless doing that right and so that's brought up an interesting issue because of the fact that the district court dismissed the claim and i was worried about the issue of some kind of the statue of limitations i found that as a matter of caution i would say that i may very well dismiss the inverse condemnation claim to refer for other reasons now george would like you raised whether or not both guests and customers are allowed to store their trucks on the property and i think that's a fundamental distinction in this case the nd amended complaint notes in several places that there are both motel guests and customers that store their trucks on the motel parking lot and it's the storage of trucks which is really an issue with the city if you look at the original notice of violation it doesn't say get rid of all trucks on the parking lot  states it's a violation for store trucks and it's a violation of the newscycle code provision that restricts outdoor business operations so it's not the parking of motel guess that's an issue it's the contractual agreements that at the hotel where the motel so he was fighting for violation of the municipal code seventeen point four team point two hundred which states essentially that business operations in the commercial zone have to be conducted automobiles under the ordinance so so the boat provisions are for storing automobiles on the parking lot not to think that having guests that are truckers staying at the motel in each of the subsequent  language that says there by the license plates license plates maps same vehicles from date of original notice and this is about three months later so the issue for the city is not guests parking their vehicles at the motel but people that aren't staying at the motel and simply storing their trucks and their buses at the motel and i think the nd in many complaint makes that distinction a little bit basically but it does make a distinction throughout the nd amended complain t i'd also like to correct counsel statement that the state complaint is not appealing the administrative hearing the rd cause of action in the state complaint is the issue that we have here which is that there is an administrative hearing there is sufficient state court procedures to address it and counsel has not actually proceeded with the state court proceeding here is that are you saying that because they could have no trial that's old  well i think the clemens case it does say that but that case is i think factually and procedurally different from where we are here that case was very specific to employee terminations versus was bias in the administrative hearing officer in the lake nascimento the plaintiffs were alleging that there was bias and one of the council members who shouldn't have should have recused himself and not decided the issue and in that case  central district cases are sound you know setting just for cases which obviously are not binding on you that apply in the same context as we are asking the court to apply here  so i think because there are ongoing state court proceedings on the same grounds which will adequately address any alleged due process violation in the administrative hearing plaintiff should proceed with those state court proceedings those are his remedy is not to move forward in federal court could be bias in certain in the city hiring in paying for an administrative hearing officer the procedural facts of that case was that it was presented on a petition for writ of mandamus under i believe so otoh civil procedure to ninety four point five it wasn't brought in federal court and i do believe turning to the tapings claim that the pact ok's is the political here it's a very similar actual situation while obviously the regulations that are at issue are different but there is the hardship exemption in both our case and in the pact ok's and appellants have not satisfied that that you know  i'm not have not fulfilled that requirement of seeking the exemption and having it be denied now controverts to a conversation with a planning commissioner and who said well you're not going to get it you know but i don't think that a sufficient one because of planning commission or statement cannot be attributed to the city council who makes the decision on the hardship exemption and even in williamson county when the issue of utility was raised the court said ok you can r futility perhaps but you still have to submit a plan to the city for denial until different two different plans that he brings in county case and you have to submit both times plans to the city for denial in order to clean utility and then the  and nd amended complaint well it's raised here for the st time there are no allegations or ping to lety in any of the three complaints so i think counsel is waive that argument by not alleging it in the nd amendment claim not raising it earlier well i i don't think so because the way it's phrased in the nd amended complaint it's a conversation with the planning commission or what the hardship exemption under the ordinance requires is an application to the community development director which then goes to final decision as to where there is you're going tells operation violated the word moves i think there's no final decision as to whether he could proceed under the ordinance in the way that he wishes economically viable use of the property because they're operating the property of the motel that's the primary purpose of the property in permanent purpose of the property and under the hardship exemption they have to show that there is going to be a loss of all economically viable use of the property and he cannot show that because all the city is doing is preventing him from operating in the illegal storage business the ordinance of that issue the municipal code they don't prevent him from operating the motel at all his operation of the motel is in no way impacted it's his illegal storage of buses and trucks that's impacted by the ordinance so i don't think he even if if he can move past make in williamson county and pack down think it i don't think it has to be proved i think it really has to be live and he cannot allege that because it continues to operate as a motel you permit it to operate as a motel and that's what he's doing but he's also got a side business of now we've only talked about the procedural due process and the takings claim is there anything in regard to the st amendment or the equal protection claim that you would like me to briefly address because he was asking to see a packet whether those structures were staying out the property so at the administrative appeals hearing i raised that that's in the administrative record of the hearing officer take that that's in there what i said that there was not