decision was final on the first minor boundary line adjustment before they purchased their property and we believe this misconstrues the nature of the civil rights claim that you can have finality under state and local law of administrative decision for that from state and local purposes but for federal civil rights purposes you may not have finality because here the federal civil rights claim that there was an overall scheme to illegally put two houses on one parcel and the very stratagems were  to implement that scheme the primary stratagems were you to use a minor boundary line adjustment procedure which is legally not a pleasurable or appropriate for that purpose and this may help i hope i'm trying to be helpful here just analytically there are two different ways in which standing might be an issue at issue in federal court one of them is the article three standing has there been an injury so certainly concrete and so on to satisfy article three seems to me that clearly has been satisfied the next question is whether you can state a cause of action under the various provisions under which you are seeking to stay the course of action and i'm not sure whether a standing analysis really helps you or just you might as well just to have a cause of action and then you describe your facts you know we your clients want to parcel after at least we're just talking about the causes of action understood because in our attention on them and i agree and i think that the cases do have a cause of action because the project the illegals game here to put two houses on the parcel that wasn't completed the boundary line between what became two parcels and the other one is a is a set back well both of them are based on this fundamental flaw which is that you can just boundaries within a parcel and the plane of contention an fails they have to take the house down they have to move the house if they can but i don't think they could because the setback problem would exist on another boundary or they have to reduce the size of the house so the degree of deprivation of my clients interest is directly connected issues relating to neighboring owners concerns were legally at issue and that's what the board of supervisor said well he didn't appeal and nobody else than from a neighboring ownership appealed so we're going to restrict the appeal to the developers contention about the condition the developer didn't like well and the california supreme court said well no this is local law about what's final and what's not final will not control the civil rights deprivation of procedural due process inquiry broad description of the facts and you can correct me if i make a mistake on a point to fly with you we have here a lot that is subdivided or put into two i'm not quite sure what the proper terminology is following no notice to them and landowner that's adjoining your client at that point is not that landowner your client purchases after this process of adjusting that that first boundary line has been completed and lastly by your argument that the second one is a continuation of that same process your client then objects to the house that goes up shortly after he purchases that he's a successor an interest  line adjustment procedure with a complete sham because it's not appropriate it's not legal for the situation you cannot use it where you have one parcel and so they pulled a procedure off the shelf that would allow them to avoid notice because the minor boundary line adjustment when properly used doesn't require notice when improperly used doesn't require notice either that was theirs their method of implementing a scheme to get this the two houses on the parcel without even if noticed had been required it would have gone to the predecessor in interest of your cli right and then my client would have known about it and horn well could your client have no i assume that an ordinary title search and so on would you know this was not secret it wasn't the records were available in the county offices but my client did not look at the neighboring  save some time for a bottle so i'd like to make a couple of points about the other claims before before you go away from it are you saying there is a conspiracy involving the county or are you saying the county think i appreciate that point it was made in the opposition brief the county was still was complicit in its own in the defrauding of the county the county allowed that to happen intentionally knowingly and then turned around and participated in passing that fraud the planning agency by mr rudd's asco writing a letter saying these are two legal parcels when they clearly were not and certainly were dealing with a motion to dismiss we've alleged they're not and that must be accepted as true the county knowingly went along with this thing if you want to call it duping but they were not an innocent victim because they were violating virtually every regulation they have having to do with minor boundary line adjustments didn't require title report at the time the deprivation of that and said that there wasn't enough evidence of substantial deprivation and therefore no claim there by then it turned around and said there's no property interest of all for substantive due process purposes a disconnect there clearly there's a property interest for self and due process claims are important for that claim because that they have a property next door in horn recognizes that property interest is sufficient for procedural due process good morning honest david husky for the placer county at belize with respect to the procedural due process claim i think the major flaw in plaintiff's theory is that there is not sufficient harm conceding harm and otherwise the claim is good i'm inclined to think you've got a problem well your honor it goes to the standard for procedural due process that there has to be a substantial and significant injury to property to give  duty of notice and hearing i think it's fairly obvious that if a large house goes up next door very close to the property line that you didn't want to be there obstructing various forms of you it's an evidently going to have some harmful effect on property value on v or whatever so it seems to me that there's harm it may not you know you can dispute as to whether or not it's ten dollars worth of harm or ten million dollars with harm but there's going to be some harm you are i believe that the cases have required more harm than has been alleged and this one because the harm here is your right it is related to the putting end of a large house the money the meyer boundary line adjustments were not relevant to the putting of the large house that could have happened anyway the only thing that happened with a minor boundary line adjustment is allowed the original house to be moved but the house next door two stories with the snow and rain sloughing off the roof the minor boundary line adjustment wasn't even  rest too much on this meaning obviously the reason they want the minor boundary line of judgment and to be able to move the other house and believe other one is that it is for the overall economic advantages to have two houses rather than one on the lot and once you reduce the they were not the owners when this came about i'd rather go to the to that sort of argument because well let me ask you this do you concede their point that in fact a minor boundary line adjustment was not appropriate under the circumstances given the nature of that lot no i don't believe that the way that they're presenting the allegation this case is that in my government l information had by the county was there were two small parcels owned by one owner i see ok and they that the owner then applies for an adjustment to create a billable lot next to the lot that they already have players appear to be alleging that the county was duped that the fact there was always one lot the should've happened but the information had by the county is that is the information that we've relied upon at most there could be a negligence claim that we didn't do further research or enough research to try to figure out that we've been being duped but i don't see how the same give rise to a constitutional deprivation by the county as far as equal parcel and i understand your impression is that it was two parcels and they just wanted to just if this had been a single parcel and what they would come in and ask for a was could you some divide this into to parcel so that we can build two houses what would have been the requirements under not constitutional law but under county law ok a notice of two surrounding neighbors may notice required at that point you know i don't know the answer that question i'm not sure  had that been the case whether under county code a lot split that under the circumstances would have required notice i'm not sure but doesn't that sound like an ordinary delusion that would likely require notice it sounds like that but it might be for one split into two that might be large enough to imply to bring up a you know under the subdivision map act i would assume that it would that it could require notice to to neighbors if it could but i don't know the answer that question if a buyer scouting was interested in what was going on in the neighboring parcels nearby is it possible to find out if there are building permit applications or or zoning change applications or boundary move adjustment was recorded so that these are all the information was available that should the plaintiff chose had chosen to look but they would have to look at their neighbors neighbors property not their own i want to go back though just briefly i'm running out of time gets back to the horn harrison harrison line of cases where more harm than has been alleged in this case was required to give rise to the notice and hearing requirements for due process  the complaint that your client bought two parcels no and so we don't know that we do not know we might learn that later possible assuming there is one parcel there were however two clearly separate down really boundary line adjustments involved in this case that if there was one parcel how can that first miner boundary line adjustment in fact li a minor looking at the equal protection violations and i believe my colleague was leading into this there have been no particularly identified similarly situated parties who have been treated more favorably on this what now is a single parcel or one moved in a new one built and new boundary lines has to be established between what the moment is one partial and will become two and assume further that if that's the procedure the surrounding neighbors are entitled to notice that the lot is being divided into two what consequences would then follow if that is true and so many other factors as as alleged that is to say no notice was  provided the current owners in the owner at that time the earlier owners owned at that time but they didn't get any notice and therefore they did no and therefore they can pass on the knowledge so these plants buy without knowledge of what's about to happen what has happened and what's about to happen where you are that's a difficult question because part of that he said that that's kind of what's alleged right that's that's partially what is alleged but that hypothesis would also hinge on how the property similarly situated parties in the area have been treated but for example i would think that people in the position of the coolies if they're buying a lot of the house that they bought it wouldn't it would affect whether they buy for the price they pay if they know that another structure is about to be built next door and if they know that for example the lot has just been subdivided and it's now that a new lot and while the building hasn't uniquely based on the testimony of the plaintiffs here and because of the pleading much and there's been a testimony by the plaintiffs is simply the proper of a proposed amendment that gives a detailed list of the kinds of harms that they have suffered include increased erosion this is a very steep hillside just just on the lake side of the property that it's steeply down there's loss of privacy loss of use loss of the neighborhood character all of these things affect property values that your honor noted and this is in the opposition brief that we filed in the district court this long list of type of harms but those are types of harm but the degree of harm really should be a matter of p pleading do you have in your complaint anything to the notice that would have been required and presumably then would have been provided to your client's predecessors in interest had just done a subdivision of one lot into two i don't believe we have that in the complaint but i do believe we have that in the opposition brief to the motion to this mess and it wasn't something that anybody argued needed to be alleged in the complaint but certainly we could allege and i can give law had that notice been provided the existing the then existing owners would have known about it they may or may not of objected but they would have been required to pass it on as part of their just duty of disclosure as their selling that this is gone  and there and therefore your clients one way or the other would have known about it and it would have to have been affected their behaviors they bought a lot that's correct that's not that's not i think the strongest version of your case and that neither side can give you the side if you want to government differently and identifying is something that should happen at the proof stage you know that he has a protection claim speaking only for myself as a loser well if you lose your on the fact that i really don't  whole property owners are not a protected class under the equal protection that's true that's why there's a class of one type of claim and there's no rational basis for that part of it but we did ask to i mean to allege the similarly situated people the district court ignored that and in my opening or if you have anything else you want to say ok and you're not interested in that i understand especially as we're overso