remark i don't intend to go into the convoluted facts of the underlying transactions that arrived in this lawsuit other than to say that it involved a series of real estate transactions between mr and mrs  mr and mrs moment and specifically mr moment in with whom he was primarily dealing and led mr many in to believe that the case was only partially settled and that there were other substantial aspects of the memorandum opinion that denied well granted the initial motion to dismiss but did me leave to amend the complaint in the course of that opinion judge may that said what i think the scope of the sound you hear kline kline used both i think it was both i think my client believed that the case was going to live on because if you look at the transcript of the conversation and if you look at the amanda complaint in which i made this allegation mr mini and believe that an accountant was going to be appointed by the court and would come in and try to do an audit of the dealings between him and mr bennett is not a s event that occurred subsequent to the filing of the press of the that would have put him on such a notice the judge made it has already ruled and we endorse this ruling that the press appeal itself did not put him on such notice just because the and versus davis which seems to be the lead cases relied on by the court and by both sides i think very much cuts in our favor and the reason is that environment versus davis there were three  documents that made it clear that mr diamond was on notice of the fact that his lawyer mr davis was representing them reynolds merely on the question of whether the reasonable man is the plaintiff in a situation like as reasonable diligence on those facts be a question a court could resolve never words if i have a lawyer and i have checked with my lawyer at a period to see that is you know let's say probable cause being a legal issue and i guess i'm just trying to figure out which is your position the reason once as such assuming that we had a factual record that was tested to the appropriate old stage or whether you're talking about negligence or probable cause or pulmonary hearing or a reasonable nist investigation in this case it seems to me that first you have to develop a fa about precisely what happened and then you of course apply the water to that to ascertain whether under president the facts give rise to a finding a reasonable basis and i guess my question is assuming the first part of your of that it be citizenship meaning residence and an indefinite intention to remain and we've actually held that allegation of residence alone is insufficient so is there a defect in  to the case being here you might like the other court matter i have well it was not a forum shopping exercise your honor seemed to me that it was a local court type of a controversy and that's why i filed it there and you'll have to ask my counterpart as to why he chose to really i mean on a serious matter i mean we have to determine when we have subject matter jurisdiction we can't agree we can't dodge the question i don't disagree with your honor so you kind of notch judge known him which is a few years now hear from the other side thank you the morning your honor may it please the court my name is james mark health and i represent the holy michael davidson who was present here in the courtroom today he is now retired and as far as i know he is the long term resident of virginia that should raise an issue as far as the intention of residenc abducted by terrorists and were making a claim of damages i believe it was against it around and that they were led to believe later after they obtained the fall and obtain damages against iran then they sued their council for saying we did let me know that we could go after also an arm of the islamic state as well and see somebody in damages and this true is play almost like a summary judgment motion in that case and here it is plaid that mr one meaning unsigned oppressive p that said that this that the clerk shall dismissed with prejudice this action now leaving that might be possible to get to a jury but it would also require the lawyer to also allege that concrete action is being taken up some calling as in oh about to file a complaint i am sure the lawyer simply  not relying on the fact that counsel was representing the man in some other matters here relying on the fact that the statement itself is even assuming this was their only matter is to make a correct your honor and in fact it but continues representation has to be specific e mail sent by counsel to the to the client saying i've looked over your case i think they may have lost on appeal and he says i have looked at europe i've looked over the appendix again i've looked over the case i really feel bad that this is ended up in a bad way i think we have a chance to get this before the supreme court of the united states i don't want to give up on this case let's have that conversation let's have that strategic conversation about what we do next based on where we are now that is exactly what  that out on the face of it as the facts have been developed that it was not a jury question that the three documents that came out before were sufficient to put the mr diamond case was still going on and so there hadn't been a cool of an injury yet because the once the once that case ended then you have an actual case to bring so so those facts weighed were much easier to i think discern and that was in a twelve in six case but here your honor i mean we have the face of the complaint and the district court put the medians on notice right from the outset right after the first complaint hey on the face of this you've got a statue limitations issue that you fall in twenty fifteen and it's very clear that your injury occurred in two thousand and ten when you signed across that but i see that my time is up if i may just briefly just say that he had a second chance to fix these to put in the  new information the new allegations that would bridge that gap in the best he could do was to early two thousand and twelve which can't be read to get him to them may seventh two thousand and twelve that he wants there's no we were restricted to what's in the complaint and i guess like the district court we can consider the material that is incorporated by reference into the complaint yes your honor what if any of that material shows that mr davidson was representing the appellant's on any legal matter that did not involve the subject property here there is just an allegation that he was working that i think it's in paragraph three he talks about or four he talks about how long he that my client had represented the medians in several matters and then later  further allegations of the complaint which talk about this one case right so so that's all that's in the complaint is that it doesn't go into detail about what these other matters were it was that in paragraph thirty three talks about that there are phone the thing or set forth any facts that say that when these conversations were happening they were clearly related to some mather other than this litigation that you say had previously been settled well how can we reading the complaint and taking the facts and inferences in the light most favorable to the plaintiff say that any of these conversations did not involve litigation again soon or do not i think we can even if we assume it all had to do with this no and what was owed k still year sure but does that mean that as of twenty eleven it's plausible that they should believe that there's something still outstanding with th that would think that there was a case going on soon we don't know what the account was for you want us to infer that it couldn't have been about this but isn't that opposite of the way we're supposed to infer davidson there were four payments that should have been alleged and to date no one their payments there been no other allegations of other payments that mr meehan says that payment i made and should have been credited these are the only four that all the payments that are alleged in the amended complaint those were already credit to you and mr meehan says yeah that's right so the reaction from my client was well we need to settle for the fifteen thousand because the only thing that had been credited were back listen to the recording i don't believe so i think it only i think only the read the transcripts been to the court isn't that problematic as ink is or additional meaning you  ok the the transcript is never the evidence in the trial it's always the recording a lot of times the transcripts are an even introduced the jurors might see them as an aid while they're listening to the recording but they don't even go back in the jury room why should why should this case be decided by reading  transcript and not even having listened to what the real evidences of something that was in or paraded by the complaint i don't think the transcript materially changes the situation the problems that are inherent in the complaint it nothing in the transcript transformers any of the payments that are listed there it into credits that were not made against the no because they were in fact recorded transcript only affirms that there is no cause of action here because the only credits that mr million now were arguing here about the meaning of a statement and you're saying that the transcript shows that the statement meant this or your rather on the other side says no it really means that those kinds of things are resolved by listening to the recording not by arguing about how you read words want them dead page but we don't have to even take the transcript in my favor even under the of contract interpretation that the district judge did not pass on and that is not it would be awkward for us to pass on that even though many ins are saying that means something different echoes their underlying claim which is of your time questioning on on direct and so i will give you another minute they are i think judge wilkins precisely the correct question which is what they did become clear to them of many and that they had a claim against mr davidson and the real problem with the trout worth ruling is that he does not point to any such date no such date is identified he talks about the teen month say as a matter of was that mr mo many and have some obligation and eighteen month period to double check what his lawyer was telling him via the invoice of so was done paragraph thirty two and via the conversations are regular conversations that the case is still ongoing that he had to find himself tried to check the docket or contact another way or for a second opinion and you know i'm not sure what the bright line he is between eighteen months and ten years