them all of them was filed based on that statute of limitations in nevada for legal malpractise and i don't know if you have any questions on that i think i covered it pretty thoroughly that  nevada seems that the statute of limitations question seems to be central to the appeal if you have well over ten minutes of time left why don't we hear from the other side and you can respond to their arguments do you want to  jeffrey white he's the attorney who's involved here and he's been helping me and i do want to focus on the statute of limitations issue because that's central so the correctness of what the district court did in this case disagree you have to have damages before you can bring your malpractise suit because i disagree with that idea because a cause of action for legal malpractise has five elements knowledge of all five of the material facts necessary to your cause of action means you say you have knowledge of all five and that's exactly what the undisputed record shows in this case disappointed with the the environment in california and so she looked into filing her same claims in the rather she then went into nevada and one nine hundred ninety six and retained mr jeff white saying i don't like what i'm going to get in the federal class action if you believe that you can get more from me here in nevada he said i believe and i will try my best to do as well as i can for you with the understanding the third statute of limitations clear understanding of the risks they're all spelled out in the assumption of risk agreement but the fundamental basis of the district court's decision was this she knew she had retained the battle lawyer to file an invalid lawsuit that is the the nevada lawsuit is the underlying litigation she was aware in maine that the foreman convenience was going to cause for case to be dismissed so or attorney said i will bargain for the best opportunity or best conditions i can get but but it's a dire situation because we're going to be dismissed for form shopping language or anything like it used in any of the correspondents with the plane i can't i can't a waiter that i'm looking at talks about how the stipulation would only have a minimal effect on her for many of the plaintiffs and when this cop it saw that she didn't have trolling for her case that was in september of one thousand nine hundred eight she saw the stipulation she realized she didn't get tolling at that point she was angry legal malpractise case comes to court and they can establish four of the five elements that you ticked off i think quite accurately on your hand in your argument but at the time the case  presented to the about a court there's no evidence of damage it's very simple cemented versus animal i see i was in that case and in that case i tried to tell the court it was premature the underlying case had been up on a l and we were suing a lawyer for legal malpractise and and i said but you know i realize that the underlying case is on appeal it's premature and the court wouldn't listen to me so we went to trial and we won underlying case was reversed and of course and then the case against the lawyer was reversed because it had been premature because the underlying litigation was still pending so you agree that in an attorney malpractise case where the element of damage is either absent or unclear or not the right that the case that there's not a case under nevada laws or two types of illegal has to come to an end meaning if the lawyer commence litigation damage occurs when the litigation underlying litigation out of your mind for the moment plaintiff an attorney malpractise case comes in the established every fifth one and they're asked about damage and they say i don't know or there's some repair work going on or whatever but it's apparent to the court that at that moment there is no damage it's premature understand about a l avenue the proper remedy for the court proper action to take would be to be dismissed without prejudice usually a request for a stay of the action because those factors are limitations and then at some time later the plaintiff comes back and says your honor i'm back i've got to her liking to see understand she can sue her lawyer of course you know that it's odd to me that the lawyer didn't tell her that he couldn't bargain for wh she would have to have to proceed so she shouldn't he should not have stipulated way her rights that's that's a question of union mr white believes that that was the best he c the the the looking back and that's what the public works through they look back the first twenty twenty hindsight the state of affairs at the time the stipulation was entered was that for someone in this pla case who had filed in another jurisdiction there was no tolling they would not agree to a yes you can't can you show me in any of the written correspondence between your client and the plaintiff where that was explained filing was their first and only filing will agree to toll the statute of limitations for the the period of time involved in this lawsuit correct yes that's a correct situation yes but as  did she have to go back to california and try to me five her so there first she had to go to reno and her real lawyer to sue or nevada lawyer before two years expired and she didn't years underlying litigation is terminated that's when the current action accrues that's what it sounds like what is sort of in dispute here is your position is court found on summary judgment right sounds like her position is that the clock didn't start and till she fully understood the impact of that of him she's saying i be marred in california of course this is a lawsuit against a nevada lawyer if she had come to nevada one month after she read the stipulations for dismissal her case would not have been premature it was a crude i think we understand your position let's hear from the plaintiff in a revote thank  refile and a more appropriate forum which california mr white's letter even said so the letter telling me that it was going to be dismissed with favorable terms changed in nevada and they don't mention damages when they describe that the newer version in one thousand nine hundred seven started july ninety seven they basically state that  malpractise acknowledged and she went ahead and stayed with him now and then it was only after the second dismissal that the court found one of the defendants that she was doing and then the manufacturers and once that because they said that i don't know why he didn't tell me that enough i guess i would have filed the day they dismissed it but i didn't know that they i didn't have tolling when they were going to dismiss my case and the nations on the following letter that several letters that you could file in california that i may have portable towing and basically the judge and in california when i won my demur they said they didn't believe necessary that that stipulation committed now practiced in the first last the first case rather that he just announced and i don't remember what year it was but anyway they said her time only started to run after that second dismissed because you never knew when she found that