controlling authority for cruel of any trust claims rd the district court improperly contradicted the texas statute concerning limitations of the state law claims for the understand why it took this long for us to get to this court i'd like to put it just in bed of contacts for a long time qwest misrepresented they had nothing to do with saudi as attempts to attack appellant in the market but whenever it was put under oath that admitted dead after responding in the speed of the opposite way in two thousand and sixteen and now they claim while you were too late to sue us they fall back on a motion to dismiss some limitations grounds and it was pending for over a year on the santa tonio desk at this district court for when he returned during the winter months as he does every year to clear the docket and they had tried to convince this district court that he had seen poor page order dismissing the case but it seems now then clear he had completed this case with a different case the case in which cross was never a party its conduct was maddox which is a patient advocacy organization work together to attack certain contracts in this case there are many more acts and many more efforts on behalf of cross them thought of which did not involve mothers about maddox which include misappropriating the customers last which included trying to corner the allergy testing market to which mothers of osmotic says no interest and that certainly quest and thought he had do and press was never tried in that case all references also played in these facts were taken as true in the complaint but they in fact visited what those doctors talked them out of contract ending their relationship and eliminating themselves from the market with united allergy there are many facts from paragraphs one any of the five grounds on the cover brought on to clear statutory and long standing legal precedents and what it would reward crast for constantly lying and obstructing the legal process to avoid accountability  the st and clearer simplest legal error is that the district court erred in requiring appellants to plead around an affirmative defense of limitations i know this court knows well that reviews motions to dismiss the novo takes all tracks is true and construe from liver liberally in favor of the nonmoving including appellants and it also does not require plaintiffs to plead around the firm to defenses rule late only requires fair notice and this court has not been has tends to reverse a dismiss grounds on things that are raised an affirmative defense of such an episode of carbon dioxide in two thousand and six only when the complaint for closes the claim on its face makes it clear there is no viable cause of action under the affirmative a motion without evidence nd there would have had to been discovery my clients would have been entitled to do that discovery presented some contrary evidence and even then qwest would have had to prove limitations as a matter of wall with no genuine issue of material fact the standard in the district court opinion at twelve b six is quite different but requires a challenge to plead the perfect complaint to overcome subsequent defenses and to prove their case without any discovery any consideration of the actual evidence act of the texas free enterprise act on its face says any cause of action is considered to correct any and all times during the period of the violation this court and it from n korea points call needs to us versus thermo in two thousand limitations but this report also made this aftershocks of trust are essentially the trying to filter out certain ops but the case following which it seems to be relying on are cases where the actual any trust file ation is a one shot one shot about like if there were a merger by class them for more than four years before suit was completed and all that occurred after after that were damage that wouldn't count or if there are in the case of al george that this court handled suit under a patent claim that occurred more than four years and all that happened were repeated pleading the case that would be a continuing violation but this court was clearer and posters exchange an imperial like the after shots argument but primarily the district court was saying you knew early on two thousand and twelve something's happening you're your customers are leaving and therefore if the specific overt acts that that's the direction that just the court's dismissal when and when is looking at your complaint i understand your honor i agree with that reading what i think the district court's doing at that moment is complaining to different standards for example the st standard is merely prior limitations not so it's pretty clear that's what they're doing they're continuing their illegal conduct with the more interest over dot's not what the other part your honor mentioned concerns fraudulent concealment that it mentally is the monkee standard but that turns that turns on factual questions on whether or not they were effectively hid their role and affirmatively misrepresented represented themselves in the conspiracy and while that was my th point i'm happy to go to that now because i know it's it's  the dismissal phase because that requires a factual predicate summary judgment on what is reasonable diligence but pride frankly will say this complaint was filed in two thousand and fourteen against the known actors allergists and was updated two thousand and fifteen against fabio and then was put plea followed by a subpoena to cross to milly was suspected of having some knowledge of maybe what father was doing who then class affirmatively misrepresented that they had nothing to do with it when we know that out now not now to be not sure that matters in the context in any trust polishing your honor only because it's pretty common to find coconspirators at different points in time and bring them in different actions but i will say that we did play that when we were aware that there was conduct i'm going by the allergist with potential who at that time seemed to be fought against expanding at the craft who had previously said they were not involved and in fact guaranteed in writing they wouldn't use a customer left only to find out that representation was false seems reasonable to peron is the fortune statute is clear it's not out of time until the defendant curves that the misappropriation was discovered or should have been discovered it doesn't start to accrue until discovery so we don't believe it was out of time until discovered two thousand and sixteen efforts were made and if any of that free leads to a man absent substantial read them not to listen central reason not to or his opinions are not equal wes we've supplied tons of evidence explaining additional overt acts during the conspiracy and answering these questions about that we did not anticipate we would have to play around given their natures and apart that the facts but also additional action we believe that clearly accrues the cause of action early stemmons phrase the original theory that the cause of action forever dad is you know just lambert's own the d c circuit in you know is a way to home in san antonio and comes down and helps them in your sort of good tutors point when you started was that the judge had come down the clear the winner docket in the you your honor and i'll just point it this way i do have respect for judge lambert and i was not only surprise i'm somewhat struggling with understanding not ruling and that's my best explanation given the legal  said is the prob judge for their case a jury rejected the appellant's claims now they're pleading the same facts the same conspiracy the same alleged torturous at their parents repeating mostly verbatim the same factual allegations but now against us as the ringleader of the conspiracy they knew about quests they pursued discovery from west in the prior case there were specific allegations about qwest in the prior case the district court properly rejected appellants tactical decision to do for certain claims against west until they were finally and the judge which should be affirmed for three main reasons one there's no time we over act alleged within any relevant instrument supplier normal commercial behaviors at most at most the two things that they were hurrying to may twenty four team exchange concerning texas health resources a customer was that that entity was quote directing away from usage for u a s not that it was doing so at the behest of either party or qwest but at most if it were doing so if it were at the behest it's referencing a prior agreement also in poster exchange the court was very clear that a specific afterward a refusal needs to occur a summary judgment stage but here one has to be alleged there's knows specific afterword  what they're alleging is sales meetings with customers or customers are announcing a decision and it's described in their own geisha body and class recognizing as an opportunity to put a sale at most your honor but those facts alleged is the prior agreement that they specifically what it was in two thousand and eleven and be a set of that agreement the jurisprudence as we read it or the limitations argument or boycott for all any trust cases where the limitations issue is is there an act by the defendant that injures the point is not is there in effect from a prior limitations act that injures the plaintiff and even  all these acts are actually not of west and this is a different case this is not just the cold pleading without a record all the specs are in the record in the prior case into the ports earlier point qwest was specifically referenced in the prior case the i mean i did notice that but what's the legal consequence qwest wasn't a party then they wouldn't have necessarily thought that they need to even explore in that direction so it goes to the diligence question that was discussed previously about whether they were diligent in pursuing their claims and discovery claims but also because they're trying to attribute the conduct of beatty as the over d act that the only agreement let me also underscore one thing that is not clear an argument that was presented earlier what they are alleging is a boycott they're alleging that u a s was boycotted by qwest at the the additional facts alleged again we don't have a minute leading here we don't have anything other than the documents that were submitted in the fifty nine emails and but none of those documents we've changed they're all of the said i think they cited or i'm sure you're familiar with the u s p s case which as to both fraudulent concealment and the discovery doctrine said this is really better left to summary judgment these are intensely fast specific determinations they've alleged things happened afterwards that go to each of their claims and is your answer well no if you look at them they don't state a claim or that those acts like your ear alleged facts any document any any topic if known today would change the claim there's nothing specific they've identified that wasn't correct right which we concealed quite the contrary everything they're alleging is from the old record in the prior case that's been known to them there's there's absolutely no reason that that could not have put them unnoticed to acquire further and they had all the tools their discoveries didn't borrow or have they chose to do so it's now been ten years ago and this is not a near miss on the trade secrets claim is missed by by a long margin and even even if it were not untimely there are not sufficient facts alleged that a list of customers was protected the effects there were done a fine long ago on many occasions we still have a proposed a minute point that is one of the if you know emotion they didn't submit one in opposition to the motion to dismiss they chose to stand on their pleading and not of men to the motions this mistake and i submit based on the fact that all of their allegations are based on the case all of this could have been alleged much earlier in the prior case if they wanted to the district court for wrecked we focus on at all d in the period all the point to is paragraphs one of three and one of four of their complaint which is a very very engine eric allegation of continuing violations no customer no specific meeting no person of communication the court was correct you define what is a no vote act that reoccurs the limitations claim then you have no reoccur all we have the continuing violations doctrine post posters exchange was clear on this that proves too much of course has since come further and so the and trying to exclude those from the market or coming up with a project that would counter the allergy skin testing market a course that reoccurs or should shows a continuing violation the distinction they would have you draw with a lemonade the continuing violations doctrine and more importantly w instances where the continuing violation doesn't save you one is they put you out of business more than four years ago doesn't matter how much they beat your dad corpse you don't have a claim because you can't be answered anymore well and they took an axe to haunt you more than four years ago and the injury just merely accumulates over time the some injuries do that doesn't save you that's imperial points colonnade but when they continue to take further acts and further it's a refusal to deal d by collecting other members of the boycott by continuing to harm the monopoly for the rest the time because they are not just curious because you know the record better than i do within the additional evidence that you did submit what a month after the dismissal just that actually finally have some doctors saying yeah they came to us it is really pretty not prepared to prove our case we are we deserve more discovery too and that would involve us putting doctor's office summary judgment or at trial that we don't need to do that and a complaint is too too early from our perspective they're trying to put us to the trial standard they say they never show you what the misrepresentation was that's not true they told us in response to a subpoena in writing in two thousand and sixteen that they would produce documents regarding their contacts with physicians and they used the costs were less and they didn't they produce nothing they sent a letter saying here are your documents had none of these e mails that we got for body later that proved it but they were in fact involved well up to her point as s's but the rules are clear well wait fifteen royal fifty six the work and the fashion we don't need to prove our case in the complaint that's for later our point is to put the defendant on notice and the whole the so that standard because if you break the rules for this case it's going to change the requirements of all of against going forward and we think that would be