and we'll turn to the last case on my calendar mary mr ben carson as i recognize that there are three different parties on on their challenge of procedurally improper agency actions which had the effect of doubling their work and then danger in their ability to remain in the community they call all these tenants of tenaciously work to investigate and challenge the transaction at issue here for more than a decade the court told them eight dismissing their claims largely on statute of limitations grounds brace a number of arguments in our briefs but today if it pleases the court i'd like to focus on  two first that plaintiff's claim under the administrative procedures act should not have been dismissed out of the relevant statute of limitations because this action was commenced within six years of the date upon which those claims accrued and nd that plaintiffs do have plain has a p a claim some statute of limitations grounds because it mis apprehended the date on which the plaintiff claims accrued now a claim under the a p a accrues only after two conditions have been met st agency action must be final determining the rights or obligations of the affected parties including the relevant agency decision making process but secondly the claimant must know or have reason to know that the agency action caused them to suffer a legal wrong sufficient to causal connection injury and the agency ad and finally they must show that the injury is redress simple here because plaintiffs were not on notice regarding this and that action between procedural violations and the harms of resulting increase their claims did not actually a crew until at least two thousand and thirteen in two thousand and seven when the decoupling transaction occurred the plaintiffs were entirely in the dark about it in fact worse than being in the dark they were misled two thousand and seven the property owners notified the tenants that they were seeking a rent increase and they solicited tenant participation regarding a draft application that simultaneously unknown to the tenants they applied to hud for associated rent on a completely different set of financial disclosures thereafter when the tenants received notice in two thousand and eight of the scheduled rent increases they reasonably assume that these increases were the result of the application they had arguably put the plaintiffs on notice regarding hud's role in the application process it failed to provide sufficient detail contents of the owner's application to give plaintiffs reason to know any of the causal connection between hud's procedural violations and their own and a party's notice of it rather their facts rather if there are other facts necessary in articulating the connection between the admission of act the civic harm on the litigant the claim doesn't accrue until the party knows or should have known of those mortgages are not insured by the federal government the section incorporates other provisions from part two hundred and forty five dollars specifying what documents must be submitted as part of a rent increase application and it further provides that the initial application in its supporting documents  to the local agency administering the section to thirty six dollars benefits in this case the new york city department of housing preservation and development rather than directly to hud the local agency then bears the initial responsibility for approving denying adjust the rent increases in the application to this provision because agencies are those best situated to determine whether the application in question is proper under applicable state laws including in this case the law by effectively cutting h p d out of the process the owner and hud increases the likelihood that the resulting increase would be based on costs which can't properly be passed along into rents under the state law scheme the district court's decision denying  and this notice stated an alternative procedure whereby hud was where hud with respect to decoupling application was supposed to be the st agency to receive that application but we argue that this agency guidance issued without notice in common proceedings under the a p a cannot be held to overrule the clear provisions of hud's own formal regulations indeed the notice two thousand ash awaits specifically states in coupling trans must comply with part his work clearly intended to benefit like the plaintiffs and had they been followed the result here might have been different and for these reasons court should also hold the plaintiffs have standing to challenge hud's violation of these regulatory provisions and with that i am happy to they had distinguish between harm that was resulting from you know in that case property rights that was realized later as opposed to that was distinguished from you know kind of and i think i think that's not precisely the harm that we're not relying simply on a bare procedural harm standing alone and said we have asserted a claim that that incorporates in itself the fact that these procedural violations had as their consequence that effectively improper rent costs were incorporated into the rent increase analysis without the opportunity for think to that that the lower court offered finding that since it's a procedural harm that we're talking about the analysis sort of ends there but that's not the claim that we've raised in the claim that we've raised here as an integral part of the the  to just to continue on that same thread under your theory every time you discovered a new fact you now say in discovery would you say that you keep accruing a new claim about a new detail about how the application was processed to which you had no opportunity to meaningfully comment and therefore you can basically every time and in fact comes out that you didn't know about previously you get a new claim under the a p a is that really a consequence if we were to adopt your theory no i don't think that consequence would follow i think that certainly once you there are certain facts that put notice of a claim and that you know once you're on notice then the effect of causing effectively a new claim to a crew was because it it was st it was what st put the tenants on notice of this this whole possibility right of the fact that there are these wrongfully included call a part of this application that they weren't able to see and so i think additional i think modest additional facts that occur in the future would have the effect of causing additional claims to occur so  then following that line could you explain to me why it was d that their discovery in two thousand and eleven i think was rank of of the fact that there was a decoupling application that was sent to hide as part of the application why that discovery didn't put them on notice of all the in your view mischief that could be wrought by asking god to approve a wrenching increase your junction with decoupling why is it that you basically had no claim back then but now you have a clean when you find out about be inclusion of the red cross or  or perhaps tell me are you making a different point yes you had a claim in two thousand and eleven but now you have a different going as of two thousand and thirteen that that latter point is is the arguing or honor that there was e application and the grand vision happened behind the scenes without their protests but then the additional claim accrued when they became on notice of facts which allowed them to distinguish the the the substantive analysis of the cost that was performed in association with the city coupling from what they had previously thought the analysis looked like because as as has discussed a bit in the in the briefs there was a ten participation process that did occur in two thousand and seven application differed from those that they had already seen and that that prior to participation so i guess would i am trying to think through here is that if you can i mean well let me put it this way would you be able to maintain both of those claims independently in the same lawsuit or would they  merge you see where i'm trying to go through that does that make them the same i do see where you're trying to go your honor and i haven't certainly they should not  they share a lot of the facts that would be important developing each of them and so i don't i don't know quite what it would mean for them to merge i think they each capture different of harm can they recover damages separately for each one to provoke i would i would think that they  could and i have a pretty clear articulation of what the damages look like under our theory namely the you know the recovery of the injunctive modification of the rent that they're paying currently i can't quite articulate for action was was over and done with for years and the factual to developments namely the plaintiff's purchase of property was was something sort of entirely confined to that person's experience and that the court found six or that that factual development did because that that new claim to accrue and yeah it's interesting consider if you just keep buying a piece of property can you accrue additional claims day by day by day and i'm not quite sure i know the answer to that but i think that's what harry suggests ok thank you very much disconnected again but i'm here ok thank you will have six minutes for their argument i'll start by noting that i believe it was judgment dean said or just asked and forgive me if it was just part of the question was every time you find a that there was no opportunity for them to give comment on this rent increase that the rent increase was premised in part on the cutting expenses and that this rent increase application was not st submitted to what new york city can do they have admitted this repeatedly in their papers that they were aware of this and ickle two thousand and eleven and in an effort to avoid being having their claims dismissed by the court on statute of limitations knowledge that they received in april two thousand and eleven the plaintiffs knew or should have known of the injury that was with the basis of their action and the complaint in this matter but they didn't file their clean and the instant case was no need to know of or allege any additional harm the concept of a statue of limitations and allow any party in a similar procedural position to renew in essence the approval of their claim any time they found some new nugget of information about that process and that simply not the way the case law works and it's not the way the statue of limitations should be treated  it's a red herring because the statute of limitations still stink and they still would have known no later than april two thousand and eleven that a grant and application had been made directly two hundred dollars rather than  eight with somehow deemed in effect that claim would still be barred by the statute of limitations i will take any questions the court  to approvals of rent increases these are just great municipal act this court has clarified that they continue in violation doctrine applies to a guest by a one thousand cuts situation where the allegedly unlawful action can't be pinpointed to a particular point in time instead of  continuing violation a series of separate act collectively constitute a lawful practice here and that we have to disagree x to approvals of rent increases this is just like other just the acts that the circuit has long held do not constitute continuing violations such as the decision not to promote an employee or not to issue a raise upon promotion the fact that such discrete acts may have continuing effects on the plaintiff doesn't make them continuing violations so for example an employee can challenge a failure to promote as a continuing violation even if it had a continuing effect on the plaintiff's employment similarly here the fact that plaintiff's rent remains higher than it was before the rent increases doesn't make those approvals a continuing violation of the approval to increase the rents are discreet municipal act but nd even if the continuing violation doctrine otherwise did apply to plaintiff claims their claims would still be on timely because they have failed to identify any municipal act that occurred within the limitations period the rent free and that they allegedly had not been aware of or been given the right to comment on that rant let us argue that this did not perfectly talk because the letter did not meaningfully articulate the cockpit were factored into the ability to participate here the less harm is that the plaintiffs could not proceed not that rent increases follow not opposing counsel asserted at that these procedural violations were not but that is not here their claim is a violation of procedural fire a requirement and not the harm was the approval of those rent increase the remedy would have been to start all over again and give the tenant a right to comment on what should and shouldn't be alleged policy favoring preservation transaction instead i just like a fact that i'm from alleged acts but occurred within the statute of limitations when continuing a fact not constitute a continuing violation moreover  approving rent actually favors or questions preservation transactions and they do not articulate what role the city had been causing or forcing building to remain in the middle of the program finally even if the court were to find that the district  continuing violation doctrine the substance of our one thousand nine hundred and three claim against the city of new york cetera but i do just want to i guess conclude with a couple of words about the acquittal tolling argument that we did raise  in the event that the court finds that our that the plaintiff's a p a claims in this case were untimely brought under the central imitations that the court should still reverse the district court tolling the plaintiffs in this case have been really the word that keeps coming to mind is tenaciously seeking redress for the manner in which they have been wronged now for about twelve years as soon as these rent increases were posed on them and they saw the extent to which they and their neighbors were going to be disastrously affected by these  t began using ball in their in their pro kit to try to address the situation it began seeking meetings with reservation and development seeking meetings with with hud they began  making foil requests to city agencies trying to figure out what the heck happened in twenty million seventy two thousand and eight it's that cause the rents to shoot up so dramatically they commenced a number of previous court proceedings both in state and federal court trying to pin and hud down and their landlords down on what exactly happened here and trying to get relief from anywhere they could find to for these rent increases that they knew were wrong i've just you know working working with these clients in such a pleasure for me because the they are so persistent and they you know one of the and then of the defendants deny that there were procedural wrongs here and that this rent increase was imposed outside of proper process and so in light of all to deny these tent access to documents which under mitchell lama and section two hundred and thirty six regulations they should have had the right to review the night them access to these documents and that's presented this