if you may please to court representing helen p j why enterprises and three other entities this is an appeal from the district court on the grant of summary judgment as pointed out in the opening brief unfortunately to district court made several errors including errors of that were incorrect simply in the factual record before that would justify a reversal of the court's grant of the motion for summary judgment specifically t start with detectives young and sloan supposedly stating it never got products to order from the products direct website when they did get those products in the court me to find that they didn't get the product second the not wasn't what the definitions are false the problem was that the court rely on what the court determines the facts saying that they never got the products but the fact indeed they got the products and the judge that made that fact is they did get the products and it may be more than just a lack of business burping maybe a lack of diligence on the part of someone in the warehouse getting a product out on time the court also erred in making the decision that the coupon books shore up what was an obvious gambling operation well in but the court never looked at the other operations the first of operations of the first seizure was the winners own enterprises six arcades after that there were six other arcades operated under the other three appellants g s entertainment mike inc and a little hard those were all not included in the first seizure the second seizure  evidence that kind of sex segues into kind my point is there was no way on the motion for summary judgment as to what those other operators the six arcades that they were the subject of december thirteenth in the february fourteenth raids what what happened in those arcades all of the evidence presented by the city related solely to the first six arcades which are the subject of the six thousand and twelve seizure there is nothing presented by the city federal claim was deprivation we filed in one nine hundred eighty three action which is not part of this appeal but we also filed an action asking what we knew we didn't file it in federal court we file that in some state court in the city and self serving and in this case the ninth circuit law and that in that regard specifically states that only if it conclusory statement then the other bloke but we don't decide questions to state law here unless unless we have severe sanction like a this is not a diversity case where we're given i thought it was five state law i would agree it prison counts on behalf of the city defendants let me address the federal jurisdictional issue mr cutie is correct that the city removed the case because on the face of the other complaint he had asserted a fourth amendment sweepstakes scheme that was presented by the use of these devices constitutes legal gambling within the meaning of oil law correct and so the federal judge given her federal jurisdiction could make this is why they also don't make a federal case out of this precise words the federal case i think i think to the extent that there are remaining claims before the federal court which is judgment or did not extend that way the underlying premise and discuss it all quite young that i'm premises if the if these devices or illegal gambling devices there can be no constitutional fourth amendment violation that and i think what was a little problematic at least from the city's perspective was procedurally what the city did was when we removed the case based on on the face of the complaint federal question because they were particularly federal constitutional claim articulated against this suit against the city the city has every right as any different it would have to  can examine state law claims when at least the underlying theory of the constitutional violation which was predicated on state law now i agree to the extent that this court has no jurisdiction or at least  on she had no federal or federal question jurisdiction then this case ought to be dismissed and failure of the plaintiff to file his his civil claims in state court in a timely basis i don't think should be should in this case ought to be dismissed on the grounds so i find that a little bit problematic because i think on the face of the complaint there was a federal question jurisdiction and the defendant had every right to move to federal court  let me proceed with respect to the underlying merits of the some summary judgment order this is a scheme under state law state gambling law where certain devices are being promoted as entirely permissible this time coupon dispensing machines now i think the court is is certainly aware that when you look at the kind of products that were being sold almost how it would be out of business if this were the kind of business that they were actually doing and we look at the coupon books that mr u g is saying was that this is what part of the court's error in not considering the sale of certain coupon books look at what's before the court and was before the scheme is something that's compliant under way law so if a court is concerned with respect to the jurisdictional issue i believe that the city had every right to remove this case based on federal question and  there is currently pending an appeal of the second indictment of certain defendants before the state court there's also a pending appeal of the civil forfeiture case pending before the intermediate should be binding on the state court as well that certainly is an argument that the prosecuting attorneys would be asserting it is not the issue with respect to the individual criminal charges because that is something that  i think ultimately would be would be linked to the determination of whether or not these devices are illegal gambling devices but with a different burden of proof under criminal law so so yes there are these overlapping issues but it was the plaintiffs who sued who decided to sue civilly for the return of the products for return of the devices and for education that their constitutional rights were violated in  trial grounds step orders pending being cited by judge trader it is not an appeal from as tutti the collective nine defendants do or initially prosecuted on may first two thousand and fourteen after judge could be asha's decision the first indictment was dismissed actually motion for dismissal was pending it was then all a process by the state because there were some problems with the case so there is a appeal pending a separate civil forfeiture under state law was initiated by the prosecution tourney's office judge lee ruled that the forfeiture statute did not justify them seizing or for fitting the property that was also that was appealed from there's only one pending appeal and it's a civil forfeiture the other thing i wanted to mention i went through my notes is the  different issue or yarn the only other thing i want to mention seen that my time is up is that the second amended complaint which was not filed until two thousand and thirteen added in one nine hundred eighty three actions so when the