prepared by the defendants the fundamental purpose of the scriptures that is is to afford the defendant economic and psychological security if no claim is made timely and to protect them from the loss and on preservation of relevant evidence only reviewed the original petition and the amended complaint that were filed into the record it did not review the master inquiry record which was prepared as i said by the defendant which is a state agency the  record an inquiry record includes personal information about mr cooper but his data birth his marital status weight height shoe size religious affiliation every description of every tattoo on his body and a record created by the defense it is clearly proper and decided will be six motions to take judicial notice other matters of public record had the court consider the document i believe that we would have met the last element on that report i believe that this case is very similar to draw in that the children which were amended to the original complaint into rock were not mentioned in the original complaint however like mr collins children the drawer children were only mentioned in the medical records which were provided to the by the medical  days and the only notice that the court found that they were involved in litigation were that they were in the medical records that were provided by the way so you do not have any sort of nine court was correct in applying the relation  and there is a record of the state of public record of the state if you believe it's not a public record of the state do you believe it was not prepared by the defendant what's the reason it's not a public record because  square i mean that the seed it questions as he was being admitted into the prison system there is nothing there to document that the defendant reference to have and children as an accurate statement are to the information provided and we can't know that the at from asian obtained in the record is even accurate these children were not born issue of a marriage between the seed and a wi e he was single at the time that he was admitted into an it still has not been established as a fact that these particular children are fairly aged to this father such that they would have a cause of action they would have had one year from the date of death to feel yet to the father and that that hasn't been established so generally speaking that's distinguishable from this case because the person who brought the original complaint did not have the right to assert the claim on behalf of the children this the person who brought the original complaint was the paternal grandmother or alleged paternal grandmother of the amended complaint plaintiff's it was the deceit its mother who brought the complaint she would not have had  at the time she brought that original complaint if the deceit it had children then she is excluded as a person who can bring the complaint for herself she had all she also would have never have had the right to bring the claim on behalf of the deceit and children because those children's mother are those children's tutor under louisiana law would have had that right to assert a cause of action for minor children there is not even any indication in the public in the document that was taken from the defendant the information taken from that is say that when he entered the jail as to the age of these children to know whether they were adults and then had that claim in their own right to be able to bring the claim without a tutor or somebody bring in the claim in their own behalf if there wasn't the difference that you're talking about the person who was originally filed in the drawer case can you tell me what the differences in the quality of the evidence that was taken notice of you know the medical records versus this more i have is that is there any difference in that or the medical record would have had i believe it didn't have  in the date and all that did it but it would have had on there a relationship between the children and the person bringing the action such that there was an establishment between the children and the person who had brought the action that they had a right to yeah i don't i'm not i'm not familiar with what evidence was actually admitting and considered in the juror our opinion because that case isn't before us to know what evidence there actually was of it in this case we model action of the six correct and so what what the original plaintiff was submitting is that under the hierarchy of people claim on behalf of her son ok it's the same thing that if it were sorting a survival action then why is doesn't that relate back to survival action just to survive auction because she had no right to bring the she has neither the right to bring the wrongful death action nor the survival action if the deceit had left either a surviving spouse or children it's the same succession exactly and so there are different statutes for the same brush yet says two different statutes a word but the same rule she is just as precluded from bringing a survival action as she is from bringing a wrongful death that action and she had no right to assert either the wrongful death action nor the survival actual on behalf of the children  as if a stranger had dialled suit and said hey this man was killed in prison and always in a year at fault for that and the question is did that interrupt in favor of the surviving spouse and children of the sea these are the surviving founder and mother of the deceased are either of them when you're saying that and all that you say is conditioned on the fact that if we left assert any cause of action whatsoever for herself the only way she would have had a right to assert a cause of action for her grandchildren is if by some way she was the tutor of those grandchildren which by the way she herself didn't know existed or else she would have put that in her pleadings how can the state be held to a standard to know that this man has children when their own grandmother doesn't know of their existence and brings a cause of action on behalf of her deceased so requires that it matters but i mean you knew that someone was standing just like if a stranger came in off the street and said hey mr cotton got killed in prison and the state to responsible for it if the person has no cause of action your honor to assert that claim it doesn't interrupt her scription as to the people who didn't have the cause of action their original cause of action hast to have some validity to it for it to interrupt her scription as to the defendant's just anybody can't bring a lawsuit and then it interrupt her scription as to everyone in the world three would look to it doesn't have a specific statute of limitations so you look to louisiana law on how the statute of limitations would be applied  another it's one year from the date of death for both causes of action the survival action is nothing more then someone else the appropriate beneficiary specific list of people that is mutually exclusive to one another as you go down the list if you left a spouse and children they have the claim and nobody else has the claim if they didn't leave a spouse or children then the next group which would have been the deceit and parents would take over are his siblings are things of that nature where straight down the list in this case the original complaint was brought by somebody who alleged specifically in the petition that i have this cause of action and by making that allegation what she is necessarily saying is no one else does and so she would have had to have been alleging that he did not leave a spouse and they did not leave any children and therefore that petition is basically saying hey i have this right there are no children to look for there is no spouse to look far because i'm a claim this claim killing would be more a lie gerar and more like reverse as alexandria ma and more like even the pappy on case if what this grandmother had done is say hey i'm a cert an alternative claim here i'm not sure if he had any children out there and so to keep this claim from for scribing i'm putting you on notice that if he has children on the starting this claim on behalf of the children but if he doesn't have children then i have the right to do it she didn't do that and so these children's on grandmother didn't know of their existence but we're going to hold the state to a standard that they should have known that he had children because he put on a farm that i have some children somewhere that doesn't that that doesn't meet with a notion of fairness as far as i'm concerned that he comes in not only that the form doesn't indicate whether these are adult children and therefore would have their own right or cause of action it doesn't say their names or who they are where they are we don't know that by the time that he dies whether they're still alive or st existence we don't know anything about it except we get a complaint later in september that says he didn't have any children and he didn't have a spouse because i i his mother have the right to assert the client and so what distinguishes this case from the killer are and all of the other cases that are relied on what specifically distinguishes it is those original plaintiffs had the right to assert the cause of action on behalf of the substituted party in this case the grandmother never had the right to assert a claim on behalf of the substituted party moreover the substituted party was never referenced either in the original complaint but they were obviously referenced and substituted in the amended complaint but they're an entirely new group of people those children's mother is who's a certain a claim on behalf of minor children and so there's a big big difference in all of that and so it boils down to the issue it's a dead the child care as a matter of law in failing to consider the prison document in ruling on the motion to dismiss if you get to that question yes then i guess you can remand it for further evidence but if the answer to that question is no he did not air and he has it right in this footnote one as to why he did not consider that document then that in a scape of all result of this claim is that there the plaintiff claims have to be dismissed i have nothing else unless the court has some further questions your argument counsel thank you thank you when this morphed originally father petition she believed that she was the proper plaintiff bringing the suit the defendants were served with original petition i believe in september