next morning honors my name is john clifford i represent the appellant's alvin or black in richard look for as the court is aware my clients are appealing from two separate orders of the district court in june order granting the twelve the six motion to dismiss the second amended complaint and in august order denying a motion for reconsideration and denying a request for leave to amend the second of the complaint my clients are here for the second time in this case i guess august fifteenth fourteen order you do your honor and my is that what we've got and if we look at the practical effect rather than labels what we have is a motion to dismiss with prejudice box that the district court put acing i can't bring any fifth rule fifteen motion according to the local rules file an amended pleading the things that one would normally do because i haven't had the benefit of any input as to what was wrong in the court's view with my second input whatsoever at the time the motion for reconsideration is filed and then when the august order comes out it does two things it denies me any opportunity to go back on june order because it is denying my request for leave to amend and it also says the action o men but again this is why we have to look to the practical effect rather than guessing games the council might engage in from a balanced perspective but we have requested reconsideration simply saying please give us some input as to why you believe this pleading is not sufficient we have said we would request permission to file an amended complaint once we basically have a ruling on the motion for reconsideration and then that is sentences that we have gotten back over the course of this litigation is i believe six sentences from the district court so for the court to simply throw in an additional sentence that's twice the feedback from the district court we've ever i believe it's understandable and i believe that the only practical effect that's fair for this court to infer given the brevity of the kinds of brevity of every response we've had every piece of communication we've had from the quote the wording of the june ten order makes it unclear if the court grants were declines lead to amount that was reinforced by the august order i would submit this case is just like the first if you feel that the plaintiffs filed where i you know i have been going to district court judge on the central district i know the meaning of this and i know that you want to get the cases off your docket so that your numbers are down you know at the end of the month so you close cases if you can if you're really dismissing at page six of the motion reconsideration i believe it's twenty having seen reads quote if the court decides to provide reasons for the june order as respectfully requested here in the court should also grant leave to amend so in fact a request for leave to amend was conditioned upon the a further explanation of the june order court provided some grudging explanation i frankly think th lack of an explanation for the court issuing the june order is something of a red herring it's a very straight forward motion to dismiss that we filed it's the same motion to dismiss that we filed i think three times now and the pla revenue as accounts receivable and they somehow understood that we were getting cash pursuant to these contracts if they had read our account recognition policy if they had read our s b c filings they would have understood that the fact that you recognize revenue pursuant to a license does not mean that the company actually has cash in hand and they apparently if you look through paragraph thirty two of their complain has sub paragraphs talking about why the statements are purportedly false and each one essentially you can read we characterize or you can paraphrase of something we thought it was cash it was actually an account receivable that's just not actual all in the situation giving the disclosure of the promise of well you know i agree with you i would agree with you on the merits of the second amended complaint but it seems i would just submit that no one can know the inner workings of a district court and the boxes and the import like a district judge everything that the appellants have done in context of the orders that we were given is entirely reasonable this  far in this particular go round we had a pleading that was submitted and actually that came up before your honor's and then we have a separate action filed and later dismissed basically so this would be the next one would five but again i think it's important to notice that this is the first time actually the second time we've had any indication as to what the court was looking for in the for example the motion to dismiss i believe had or at least raised allegations of sta limitations in regards to the california corporation code twenty five four hundred did the court dismissed because we weren't sufficiently particular ordered the court dismissed on time bar grounds and those are the issues that i think at least fairness would dictate we get another shot thank you thank you