the district court is a permanent there is no scenario no scenario under which hosty and it could have meaningful access to the courts of the united states and that is a fundamental role for the courts the united states obviously to adjudicate claims action our claim is that is that the only kind of state remedy that we can seek to have a right pointing to the doctrine of rightness is only about the question of whether or not the state has said no or the city has said no it's not nation's right and there are actually more than one remedy force i guess you could say fortunately in california you have more than one remedy a rent increase application process itself is a remedy posse and has actually supreme court and the ninth circuit by definition if one does not apply one applies the deferential standard that was applied in this in the santa monica beach case there will be no takings plan because there will be no evaluation of whether or not  no remedy for certain kinds of claims including the very kinds of claims asserted by hosty ndaa if you apply and arbitration in our current piece of standard the court will never examine whether the rent control ordinance in any way actually ch what we're dealing with that the section one hundred eighty three claim and the importance of having a direct remedy for the federal court that's an example of why law and the very reason that we have that requirement is because there's a it's really  danger of exploitation by the park owners that's the whole premise of a block apartment control in reality what has happened is rent control programs have become subsidy programs have become far more stringent than is necessary not get involved we're going to continue to a rate setting approach and a rate setting approach which in the cavanagh case they actually relied upon a ninth circuit case as one of the basis for that the cases mountain water versus montana department of public service nine nineteen had second five ninety three at six zero one and there was a great stabbing case and there the court basically held there was no violation of the constitution because the utility in that case could seek compensation for its property  future rate setting and the ninth circuit itself relied upon a us supreme court case duquesne light company versus bearish for eighty eight us two ninety nine three fourteen which had approved a similar analysis in regard to the federal rate setting its respectfully believed you honor is that that is a permissible way to handle a mistake that may occur or going a rate setting process or around setting procedures for going forward how can i go on both say that in the event that for some reason the board or the court can't come up with a new grant that has found but there was substantial evidence that the rendering priest granted him a fair return we respectfully believe that that would be collateral stock will if he didn't continue to feel that as to that issue if there were other grounds not related to a fair return analysis then he would be free to do that for court on september twenty second the court issued a decision and it least preliminarily found that the rich should be denied that is there is substantial evidence supporting the  example that he in both state and federal court in the sandpiper which was a case that was decided right after you eat they brought such an action and you brought i were able to facially challenge the ordinance in that case is that they brought it within the statute of limitations for a facial challenge in federal court one year the wall in the old state courts san as if the mandamus action is it's decided adversely that forecloses the federal court from ever getting into this situation at all again on yes collateral yes and that case the question was if you went through the state proceedings were you could you come back here and this court held not if you raise new issues if you had a chance to assuming that this court doesn't find that the state procedures are inadequate and respectfully i believe your honor a as recently as hotel motel association which was decided just a couple of weeks ago they quoted and as part of our p r you're as we take issue with that argument we think that low ball actually did leave open the possibility of arguing that the ordinance as applied could cause unconstitutional premiums claim is that the premium claim which essentially is that the ordinance is an unfortunate bore unconstitutional because it does not yet substantially advance a legitimate state interest but it's because as you're ways you can address the premium problem without changing the underlying rent i would like you just to to clarify for me where in the constitution it says that that you cannot have a rent control situation that creates a premium say that i guess there's always been sort of a due process elements to the fifth amendment and i guess it would be sort of incorporated in that argument there are certain that we're now that we're relating that then to due process well