your honor this is a case where one group of developers and their real estate agent in archetype began planning marketing and selling units in a to be built condominium development before they actually finalized their plans as would not be unexpected given these facts their plans deviated materially from those represented to initial purchasers and many never came to fruition these problems were exacerbated when the original group of developers sold their interest at a tremendous profit to a second group of developers who then later engaged in a protracted dispute about the direction of the development the rush to sell units before finalizing plans to extract you know profits before construction had even be n and the management disputes between the various developers about the project were all the direct fault of either the developers and or their real estate broker an architect now none of these parties want to be held responsible for the damage caused by these you wouldn't if a property had not been made on the the development it would be likely that the lawsuit wouldn't really for my client so i think you're correct that we probably wouldn't be here to say among many other errors by the district court as well developers primary defense against three men's claims is a statute of limitations affirmative defense in two thousand seven and the present action were working with the city of minneapolis to obtain approval for the creation of a condominium development that would sit atop a parking structure that developers had committed to building in the documents provided to stream bend in two thousand and four and yet the district court found that stream ben should have known a year earlier that the parking structure would not be built and the representations made about the parking structure in two thousand and four were untrue or misleading the district court arrived at this conclusion by tying together every single violation of the finding that the very first violation of l such triggers the running of the statute of limitations for every possible violation even those things that were represented would be done before closing were not done stream ben had no idea at the time that those represented things that would never be done until two thousand and nine indeed stream been learned for their material details well the developers continued to represent that a parking structure would be belt and they represented the spots to the city and neighborhood organizations and which a corporation whose secretary of state documents weren't technically signed at the time of the original purchase when still be treated as a corporation  was directed to the fact that we have to give full faith and credit to the state court judge so how do you propose to avoid the state court judgment other than arguing that it was this is your collateral stoppel reshooting carter problem is i understood your introduction correct so you want to speak to that credits so the state court action is in regards to notices of cancellation and stream bend or rather hamman who was the party in that action was actually defending against an action initiated by the development and and so in defending that he didn't give up has a right to pursue these claims at another day create the least harm to all of to the point applying to elsewhere is a statutory role fifteen u s c seventeen eleven aid to states no action shall be maintained more than three years after discovery of the violation or after discovery should have been made by the exercise of reasonable diligence congress expressly provided that each violation of the represents a separate and distinct violation each has its own separate statute of limitations the district court decision pointed was to know about what happened in this transaction and complete knowledge about any alleged failures to perform all of that came out in this two thousand and six state court proceeding certainly that you seek me that would be clear so how do you at least by that date everybody's on notice all the facts about this matter honor in the state court action in two thousand and six the developers can ten years to represent that the parking structure would be about and after that they continued to make does represent a sense streaming content have known that those representation basically a arrangement or tell that time what we didn't know is that the parking structure would ever be belts it was never about however the developers continued to represent that it would be about to save any time for a bottle at all right very well have a little unusual situation here which the appellant we endure argument in the apple e requested it so we'll hear from you know thank you your honor may please the court my name is william davidson i represent apple e burnet realty the real estate broker in this lawsuit i'm speaking on behalf of all the apple leaves the various other defendants and developers who are apple used in this manner we requested oral argument honor simply because this is a relatively complex factual record and detailed procedural history but as a matter of law this court should affirm chief judge davis careful consideration of this matter built upon magistrate judge rouse careful consideration of this matter this involves of the dismissal of a third amended complaint there was a fourth proposed minute complaint and whether that is in this case or not i can certainly address but bottom line chief judge davis carefully considered this matter and determined as this court is aware that the federal claims the interstate land sales full disclosure act claims that also claims were time barred under the clear three year statute of limitations that applies to of the violations are all basically of of two kinds one allegations and alleged violations dealing with the parking structure itself and the second bundle or separate allegations deal with the fact that clear title did not exist because there were mechanics in the placed on this property is this development was being constructed all of those facts and all of those alleged violations were known certainly no later than two thousand and six or as chief judge davis magistrate judge ralph found through the exercise of due diligence could have been discovered and they were on notice what different point than saying that they don't each start their own period years saying even if they all have a separate statute torrie period they were all known they were all known but we see when you think the one you think the run from and if not when each one occurs they run from per the language of the statute when the violation occurred or when the was known or through due diligence should have been that's well part of the also that we're dealing with your multiple violations alleged so you've got to look at the timing of each one and then add three years to that and that is certainly appellants contention we see nothing in the statutory language and nothing in the case father has been cited that any of the courts that have addressed this have recognized that there is some sort of continuing violation theory we've cited to primarily similar rico statutes analysis that this circuit development in the purchase agreements were served upon him but then he affirmatively brought an action and ultimately judge howard of the hennepin county district court yes miss that action and that  judgment ruling but also as the reality is that these stream been entities did not exist when they entered into the purchase agreement and there were determinations that as a result they could not as a matter of law relied upon any of the alleged wrongful representation coordinate law because there were no contract as as well your honor all intermingled here they are all intermingled with the soda judgment correct in the various state law claims were asserted or were argued in the state court action back before judge howard can you elaborate on this reliance rationale of the district court why wouldn't stream then rely on the representations back in two thousand and four when they entered into the purchase agreement well or anything i don't know if they have to show that they relied on them at the moment they may well i think musing your honor if there were subsequent representations that they want to use deal with equitable stoppel but sure sort of reads like it couldn't have relied on them at the moment they were made because they weren't exist as as i understand their argument and as i understand the procedural history here honor there were two basic findings are outcomes dealing with this reliance and when the enemies existed purchase agreements were entered into signed by gerald hammond on behalf of two entities stream three and four that did not exist at that time they did not exist for a few more days and in the state court action judge howard made a determination that these purchase agreements as a result were void and that judgment is the basis of the issue preclusion and claim  arguments we have asserted that judge davis and we believe this court should give full faith and credit to as two separate determination just stripping away let's say there was no state court judgment could there be a fraud claim i believe that both chief  judge davison magistrate judge ralph made the similar conclusion that any representations that were made before the stream and these existed the representations that cause them to enter into the purchase agreement simply as a matter of could not be the basis for a reasonable reliance element of a fraud a misrepresentation right that's what i want to write address i already knew that's what the judge said wanted to clarify that that's what we're talking about and as to that we agree with judge davis we believe that if these entities did not exist that they simply could not as a matter of law later say that we relied upon that because they didn't exist when those representations were made and they the party that's bringing this these claims these entities couldn't have acted in reliance on things i mean they didn't is that representation wasn't made to them because they didn't exist either because it wasn't made to them or because because they didn't exist later  even if that argument were to fail and certainly appellants have argued that that's in error and they've argued lots of things trying to collaterally attack the original state court judgement from judge howard a judgment that mr hammond chose not to appeal otherwise you're creating a situation here where courts are as in this case brought into a matter several years later by new entities and at the time when through the tortured history of this case when the initial motion to dismiss was brought by my client burnet realty we were unaware based on just the pleadings themselves that there had been this prior lawsuit it was not until the stream in answer to us disclosed it in the course of this litigation through their myriad motions to a other concerns about the sanctity of that state court judgement and appropriately so it's not appropriate for appellants here having litigated matters and losing them having been on notice back in two thousand and six of the very basis of their claims to come into federal court in two thousand and ten and then litigate that for three or four years through myriad motions to amend adding additional parties bringing an appeal here to contest and try to go back and undo judge howard state court judgment from two thousand and seven it's just not appropriate it's not appropriate under any of the doctrines that we've cited it's not appropriate use of judicial resources it should be rejected as chief judge davis did they gave the lower courts gave appellants numerous opportunities to plead a legitimate complaint and they simply could not do so refer the court in response to the arguments we've seen from appellants in their briefs to this notion that well yeah we had litigation in two thousand and six that we lost in two thousand and seven but we couldn't have known about this part i'll refer the court to two things i think the court is aware of it in very detail on pages twenty eight and twenty nine of our  appleby's brief we set out all of the factual allegations that appellants through their then principal gerald hammond their current principal asserted and knew about the parking ramp structure dispute and the unusual isn't it it is somewhat unusual of this case is somewhat unusual and given the procedural history in the link the developments here but if academically your honor if we were just looking at a complaint or an amended complaint and it was pretty bare  bones i would tend to agree with you that might not be enough on a twelve b six motion to dismiss but as well in addition to a very detailed amended complaints and the like it is appropriate and we've cited numerous cases in our brief it is appropriate for the district court to do as  did here to take public notice of other court filings and that's appropriate when considering particularly the race judicata collateral stoppel arguments but it is appropriate it is even appropriate on a twelve six motion your honor your arena but also on the statute of limitations grounds what are these documents that you cited pages twenty and twenty there are pages twenty eight and twenty nine document one thirty six i believe if we're on the same page or on or the one six days to one thirty six days three yes or those were affidavit exhibits brought by one of the defendants motion to dismiss but specifically those were the pleadings in the state court action and those were normally when you standards apply and even if it did your honor it doesn't change anything even if this court decides that the district court should have converted this to a rule fifty six motion it doesn't change the legal effect of the statute of limitations the facts of the alleged violation were known or through due diligence should have been known and to circle back to that point i refer this court to i believe it's a denim sixty nine where magistrate judge ra in one of his last report recommendations which chief judge davis adopted in full i believe it's document two ninety nine we were getting to the end of the the lengthy record examined in detail starting at a sixty nine and seventy examine in detail this notion that the two thousand and six two thousand and seven information somehow could not have been known it is clear whether this is treated as a twelve years six or if this court considers it to be treated in converted to a rule fifty six the three year statute of limitations would be completed so specifically this is what i'm referencing when i say that appellant could not have known at the time of the state court action that the parking structure would not be completed because throughout the state court action representation is continued to be made that this parking structure would in fact be completed additionally i want to point out that the existence or nonexistence of the should dream bend and does not bear on the federal ill so claims under the stream bend the carlyle decision of this court proof of actual claims in a number of arguments that we made about de facto corporations and how we could overcome that argument but with regard to that also claims which dominated most of the discussion