you'd like to cite i can give it to you three sixteen that third at ten forty eight i what you have before you is a case that arose out of the district court in nevada where judge may a one shot statute in other words you had one chance to plead and that if you didn't meet the street leading requirements for the p s l are a you were subject to defendants i mean they talk about what the theory of the complaint is against them so they understood that judge making and invited the parties to address the p s l r a ok at that point the making and says let's just address that now there's subsequent briefing and then there's an issue that arises in regard to my prior counsel's conflicts status and so then we step into the case like two weeks or so before the hearing the briefing is done and at that point in judge may hand acknowledges this in one of the transcripts that were basically left with no choice but to try to defend the original complaint now at that point want the defendants together we will plead that for example mr delete on this day that this person you know with that state of mind and that's the whole basis for their objection to the complaint and it's not like that the tenants didn't understand what was the nature of the claims being made against them i'll quote from the motion filed by the erect defendants the core theory underlying all of plaintiff's claims is that the defendant hands finding but what he did was he went too far there's not a case out that i truly understand your point and i just want to say you know what you're doing now is representing that if given a chance to a man you would be able to they will if they if they don't like it they can challenge it on a motion we're not off to the discovery races you can't engage in a fishing expedition once the motion is files there's no prejudice at least give us one chance to to him and he for the act for the action had to be the sending of a letter ok the letter was never sent no amount of amendment would ever cure that defect ok that's the men that there would be futile here by definition the type of effect we have can be think i would have actually tossed it and said you know here it is here i can play in the facts it's not it's neither futile nor is it appropriate for you to keep me out of court well i think i did argue that at the hearing and i mean i'll even quote from the transcript from judge awkward way and i felt that the first thing i had to do was go back and seek relief from his order dismissing the case with prejudice because on a dismissal with prejudice what do i have to amend so that was a legal issue i thought judge me had it gone too far and that's why i you construe this record that's what happened there's one term point and shoot and a dismissal with prejudice and there's no case that's been cited anywhere where a party has been thrown out of court with prejudice after one shot of complying with the ok thank you that's why i said if there is it's there purely acting in the capacity as an attorney your honor should correct if they go beyond that and take other actions get involved in matters beyond just purely three then we think they can be subject to liability again that's also something that we would have to assess in our pleading which would be governed under rule eleven and all the other rules that apply all we're asking for is one chance to come in and address the deficiencies discovery that was the first position was made known at the very first hearing there were three subsequent hearings and at least a half a dozen for use since that time not one single hearing or one single brief these folks ever come back and retract or modify or rehearsed that statement or position and not once in answer to your original question if they provide the court if you gave us a chance to amend the complaint here was what we could add and just like in their opening statement in that first hearing th nothing that tells me you have nothing that clearly is a finding of futility that clearly is a correct ruling in this particular case and i don't know how and even when they talk about the evidence decision let me address that for just a minute i do re fundamentally missing from their motion for relief and even when i raised these issues in my opposition and they prepared a reply brief it was still missing so they had nothing and then by the time a government of the fourth hearing the court the judge may have was very he was looking up saying you know what do you want me to do here i've given you opportunity after opportunity after opportunity no one has told me what you would do to remedy the facts in this complaint and that's where i get to the evidence case and why i think it's have been more than one try i don't think that is the difficulty because that was not the dispositive fact what happened for example in lipton we had eight complaints that were filed by eight separate parties they case because we do have judge making and very carefully telling these folks at this last hearing this is why i didn't mind it because you have provided me with no additional information you provided me with no new facts and secondarily we have no proof other than separate out the allegations well that that's nothing that doesn't change the defects in the complaints they didn't come forward and saying we could provide a b c and d with regard to mr librax in terms of what statements he made in terms of how they were relied upon and so forth those factors never became before the court in the hearing on any motion and you won't find it in the transcript and so for that reason it was clearly within the court's discretion to rule as it  criticized the complaint for being too general and all we need to do to address that is separate out each allegation to each defendant that's all that was required that was the only defect raised and we were never given the opportunity basically mandated that in a p s l are a action where you have these highly technical pleading requirements that you get more than one shot and that and that really is the issue here and they're not prejudice i not like we're going to go on to a discovery fishing expedition if they don't like the next complaint that they have they're free to challenge that by way of a motion to dismiss their plenty of procedural safeguards and quite frankly i think as you can see in the in the  can again he didn't do that with the original complaint there's no fine that's futility which that requires three and when you're sitting there facing a dismissal with prejudice what is there to him and he's told you it's one shot just that's the problem is he said a one shot now you didn't you you made an effort to get him to undo that exactly and i told him as i told you that these defects that were highlighted and again i think  situations and you have anything else they are not the only thing i would say judgement on that last point is that i don't think judge making and by dismissing it with prejudice gave us the shot we needed to come back and present the complaint and i think that's precisely the issue the requirements of your honor we have been analyzing that our client is actually here and we believe that we can put forth an adequate a complaint against the libretto defendants and i can assure you that you will not