say thank you district court in this case treated the summary judgment motions as if they were trials to the court you did not draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving parties decided issues of fact and most importantly regarding the issue of animists the court seemed to treat every fact as if it was in a vacuum and i'm what i said i would say that i mean that if they were he went through a list and he said well this fact doesn't establish an amount animists in it in by itself and he went to the next fact and he did make those same conclusions and then after about twenty facts he never put them all together and said could a reasonable jury decide that putting all of these facts situations together reasonable grounds for suspending the license well our position that it does not is that it does not provide a clear and reasonable brown st that was in the license our our position is that the decision occurred my client had exactly one blemish on his record he had a noise complaint and at the end at the time that and then when the shooting happened all these people came together and we are claiming that all the reasons that they cited is not having control of the premises and cetera et cetera that all of those reasons were pretextual that those reasons that he could not establish those reasons for instance i didn't i you didn't happen where the shooting happened outside of the club i mean it's sort because in virtually every other case in the last ten years involving a white club or urban or a non black club the city has not used the extraordinary request and the extraordinary remedy of an immediate license suspension portland and that there had been there had been four requests for emergency shutdown and that two of those requests were were were black clubs in a city in which six percent of the black population is black and white and  issue on summary judgment is whether we have enough evidence that can show racial animus in our position is that if you take this evidence which is which is which is admitted lee imperfect and you combine it with the other racial animus that would get you beyond summary judgment then you may have factual issues but that was a ship but in our particular case for instance we would show we would show that that  against the city defend not against mr mark of the city the city defendants start with that start with that is there racial animus claim against mr morris we cannot forward a racial animus claiming that to take place the mayor continually bush the asked bridges in the hearing on the suspension when there was a suggestion by the o l c c that they that the club be given another chance to be given some sort of mitigation agreement the mayor said no no i want this club shut down so so and then of course mr march that you know actually racial animus mr march in our view clearly violated the due process when rare earthquake i believe your honor that he requested a hearing and did not go forward with the hearing and his testimony had this testimony is to be clear in our position is that that the minute the minute mr marks did that in violation of oregon law without the guise of that and without prosecutorial immunity the minute mr marks decided that he was not going to allow the hearings officer issue in order based on my client's  hearing request the the damage was done and quite frankly at that point we would tell the jury my client was in a position where he realized that they were playing games with them there was no legal basis for them to pull the jurisdiction and he realized that he just couldn't afford to keep your client argued at the end of the st hearing the procedure was improper and they didn't have jurisdiction to proceed he argued at the end of the st hearing i don't know if jurisdictionally argued that the notice was not appropriate well there's a need to know it is not appropriate you only argue that if you think that's a reason for not being able to enter a decision the hearing officer not being able to enter a decision what i didn't want is there to an argument you know here's the determination on the merits at the think of this situation this person has had his license taken away then why does your client i'm interrupting because i want to use up all of your time but if your clients lawyer is arguing to the hearings officer there is not to tell me that your client made an argument that wasn't meritorious doesn't mean that he didn't make that argument and of the state officer might say gee you know there may be a problem there so i'm going to start this process over again maybe or maybe i'm start well i just don't see what was wrong with that how it needed what went your client's lawyer starts pushing the dominoes over this is not an illogical result from our argument your honor it may be that that's the reason that mr marx decided to take just trying to strip illegally to strip jurisdiction away from the hearing officer or on the other hand it may be because as a result of the hearing the state of oregon realized it was going to lose the hearing and he's getting pressure from the from the mayor and other people saying we want to go forward there's an issue of fact on that and it's certainly a credible explanation that after the hearing after the hearing was over they thought they were going to lose on the merits and they didn't want to go forward but the important point  suspension that was issued was properly issued and if the emergency suspension is no longer in plays our court at least would view the whole thing is millett that point you heard anything else he did not remove the emergency suspension he took the jurisdiction of the waived what he did was he didn't say that emergency jurisdiction suspension is gone as i recall the fax he reissued the license will the jurisdiction hear from the city repeat the words in the argument use or not doing a very good job of it preventing the hearings officer from rendering a decision after the hearing my and here my hold of the facts may be end effect of this i visualized a game of whack a mole of the director really wanted to amuse somebody hard to visualize the process of where murder and see order is issued to have a hearing the order is yanked back a new emergency order is immediately issue you could venture have another hearing that order is yanked back a new look it doesn't take long to see the potential abuse of that process what you  have then the timeline following the close of the hearing is about thirty days to a final order so they close the hearing immediately the delay would have been on the order of a couple weeks at most perhaps as little as six days there was some other reason but the documentary evidence establishes beyond beyond dispute that at the time that they defaulted on their lease right at the time they received a nd suspension or they had already defaulted on their lives and if appearing for the city defendants the district court in this case properly granted summaries of judgment to the city defendants for several independently sufficient reasons and this course of the firm is an initial matter i would like to no an entity on defendant market in different jackson and they make no arguments with respect to the other cities or to the other claims that they purport to challenge in their brief in particular the i would say st the city plaintiffs had to point to sufficient evidence to raise the issue the fact to show a deliberate policy customer practice that was the moving force behind the alleged plaintiff could not meet that burden st the purported statistical evidence simply does not show statistical disparities in this case as judge accrued observed the record shows that there had been five requests for emergency suspensions at the time of this case two of those requests involved clubs that were owned by african americans one was owned by  asian american individual and the final two were owned by white individuals and as the district court explained that is insufficient just as a matter of law to show the existence of a racial disparity and then of course because here the license suspension was issued by defendant marks plaintiffs simply have not pointed to evidence that would show that would be sufficient to raise the question of fact for at this court has said both causation back and proximate cause and so for that and neither of those exist in the case defendant jackson and his do not point to anything that jackson says or did that would raise any inference of racial animus on his part and there is nothing in jackson said or did that would link that reported racial animus to the decision to grant the license suspension so really and so for that reason this court should have firm summary judgment as to defendant jackson and so that really leaves us with different marchetti which is really where plaintiff their arguments first of all for the numerous reasons no in our brief there is insufficient evidence to suggest that the few ambiguous comments defending marchetti that points to that there are sufficient to show racial animus under both this court case law and u s supreme court case law and more significant again there is nothing to suggest a direct cultural link between any purported animus by marchetti and again the decision to issue the temporary suspension as we point out into the city suspension letter similarly contrary to what that argues director mark did not testify that he issued the license suspension the image mentioned simply because he was told that letter from the city and again that letter said nothing about the club reopening that night and he stated that his primarily his primary concern was the potential for retaliatory violence based on captain krueger's letter requesting the and forty four dollars said that his superordinate concern the caused him to issue the immediate suspension order was that the club was going to be reopened that night and it's interesting that was not placed in the in the order cetera et cetera and also told them that he intended to open that night and that was simply false she's that she is that she or whoever started that rumor is the cause of the shutdown order and i just want to say very quickly says that if the licensee demands the hearing in the hearing is the agency shall issue an order doesn't say anywhere that the that instead of issuing an order that the that the the director mr marsh can just simply pull the