kleinfeld could you help me on what is the key question for me in this case i'm sure that my colleague from also had some questions for me the key question is whether  after the criminal proceeding was favorably concluded against let's say and the civil proceeding was still pending he could have and was obligated to man is complained to and the additional claims that had previously been barred by first attempt to understand the question i do your honor and and the question  as i see it is not whether he was required to mend the other point which had already been in litigation for some period of time but whether the point did not approve the criminal proceedings favorably concluded it looks to me as though there was a lot of time number of months between when you could have brought discovery had already won and there are the brains on the district courts in all states but in particular no particular nevada to bring the case to trial within a certain period of time  clause in the settlement agreement could you describe more particularly what was discussed with regard to the claims that mr lambie was going to reserve out of the criminal prosecution that followed his ar settling the case and at the time of settling the case they provided us as typically defendants do with that document and that changed the document that  with it was my understanding at the time between discussions with counsel that there would be no issue as to is the ability to bring this claim of that i'm going to call malicious holding them in jail for three and a half years to have two that he wasn't in jail that entire time but he was in jail for a period of time but it was the fact that he's lost liberties and was out on hundred ninety nine and from your honor question one of the first thing that things that jumped out at me is business you about the release the release that was signed by mr last day in july of two thousand and three held open the possibility that one thing and one thing only might happen and that is that he might pursue a claim down the road for malicious prosecution in that regard i'd like to point out that the claims that were brought by mr let's say in the second complaint filed in may of two thousand and four in the district court brings a claim for a leaf or false arrest a claim for relief or county liability no ninety three claim for malicious prosecution there is a false arrest claim and a claim for malicious prosecution to federal claims that were brought in the second complaint in may of two thousand and four were brought or could have been brought and pursued when mr libby filed his initial complaint in january of two thousand and one there is no claim for malicious arrest and for certain alleged negligent training hiring and supervision on behalf of the county there is no malicious prosecution claim that has been brought by mr left in his complaint filed may fifth of two thousand and four so there is no federal claim that implicated with this release the only thing that the acquittal is relevant to is that is the claim for malicious prosecution that was brought under state law decision really change the analysis i don't believe that that's what he's what he's claiming your honor the claim that forced in the first complaint and those that forth in the second complaint with respect to his arrest are almost this arrest the second complaint makes the same claim that mr holub arrested mr let's say unlawfully under the false claim that he had a knife i don't think that there is one brought under state law is the only thing that would require there to be a favorable terminations of the underlying criminal action saying counsel if if mr levy had been convicted he could still maintain a false  arrest allegation against the officer and that the evidence would have been limited that would have been limited to what the officer knew at the time of the arrest and the conviction would have been excluded the evidence of conviction that seems a bridge too far for me had been convicted of the underlying criminal offense that he never the last could have maintained an action for false arrest against the officer and at the time of trial the evidence would have been limited to what the officer knew well not not necessarily your honor i think that that we're dealing with to separate animals the one being a false arrest they claim us or the issue is whether there was probable cause for the arrest as of january twenty sixth or nineteen ninety nine when he was arrested and a completely different claim for malicious prosecution that may be brought at a later time and i don't think that the rest necessarily concerning a malicious prosecution claim and i believe that would be barred because there has been a judgment by a court of competent jurisdiction that there was probable cause and the action with respect to claim is whether there was probable cause to make that arrest that she was being decided by the district court because the malicious prosecution claim was brought under state law  only issue with respect to whether mr left they needed to wait until the time that his underlying criminal conviction was resolved favorably for him was not addressed by the district court because it does not three the question here is in his second complaint filed in may of two thousand and four he has done i brought a nine hundred eighty three claim for malicious prosecution he has brought a claim only against deputy hall of  related to the arrest with respect to what happened later and could he maintain an action for malicious prosecution after his acquittal but that claim perhaps could be brought he has how we have read what he's pled in the second complaint again not yet reaching the issue of potentially a liability but as we have read the complaint there did not appear and does not appear to be a malicious i'm looking at the complaint or honor and i can when you look at paragraph twenty one of the complaint and when you look at the old complaint we find those allegations in both to be very similar  and i it's unclear to me right now whether you would like me to address the issue of the claims that have been brought again against sheriff bannister and the county for failure to train hire and retain deputy hall and as we set forth in our briefing those claims accrued at the time of the arrest of mr let's say in january of ninety ninety nine we believe that those are clearly precluded preclusion well had we not included that saving language in the in the settlement agreement i would agree but does it include that settlement agreement and there were these other down well without the without that resolution and i don't know that we could prove it that we never could have that client without the successful resolution i would agree that  on its face it doesn't appear to be that large but if you don't have a successful acquittal or resolution of the underlying then you're not going to be