first issue is if their district court erred when it found that my client released his claim for an excessive slope could descend on the sidewalk between the radio shack and grocery outlet through the settlement agreement with grocery outlet that settlement released grocery outlet and police jaramillo for exterior conditions that were both  for five thousand dollars on a say a certain you know on a certain barrier and my understanding is that you want to use that settlement as the predicate for all the other barriers that he didn't encounter right as a matter of law essentially that could correct because even though the claim may become moot during the pendency of the action and this court finds out that my client indeed released  condition the excessive slope condition between radio shack and grocer outlet and that condition became moot but it doesn't mean that my client lost his standing because then the patches and the falling of the complaint at the beginning of the x it's not but but it isn't exactly a dorian situation it's a little bit it's sort of it if we were to agree with your position i'm not saying i'm not saying it's wrong at this point it has to go a little further than what doron actually says and i correct this kind of situation which is what is happening here but that is what you're trying and trying to see is just because it isn't exactly sure and so if you have a judgment for five thousand dollars against one person in this whole complex and then you to use that judgement as to everyone else is then what you do is then you go to everyone else and say see they settled so now you all have to settle and i don't have to do anything else and went on summary judgment well i mean i eight people to be able to go to a particular area and you know something that i would encounter that wouldn't be a problem would be a problem to some in this eighty eight this five thousand dollars settlement if the slope is the problem and that's what was settled the five thousand dollars isn't going to fix the problem so every other eighty eight person so it's not so you could check to go around every want to get five thousand dollars but no one fixes anything and it doesn't fix the a problem citing to have standing does that also include that you continue to have standing when you settle that case they will first of all there's our position that the excessive spoke a dozen was never assume that we think that your client has standing to bring a claims against an encountered barriers but aren't there remain genuine issues of material fact because the district court says about the alternative proposal well there is a genuine issue about how much money was aunt by jar and so it didn't seem even if your client had standing it didn't seem like we could affirm we could say that th construction jar has an obligation to fix everything at the shopping center and the disregard and rule on that so what are you asking us to do even if we agreed with you on the standing point  not lose stanley so let's say we agree with you client has standing then what would be granted and he because he still has standing then he has a right to seek removal of other conditions in the shopping center that still claim on the ground of standing and then on the alternative ground that it was a genuine issue a material fact regarding the amount paid and so what would our order say the order would be to the court to the district court to if the standing still is there in there is undisputed conditions in the shopping center that our job one has a responsibility that still interfere with my that's why we didn't address it but what the court said that there were disputed issues about that and that's why i did that and so all we have before us is whether that whether the court i was wrong and the district court said that ours and it paid like forty eight thousand dollars and that's was an alternative reason for denying summary judgment so i didn't review the whole record of summary judgment below but apparently the district court thought they were disputes this so that was the district court's ruling on summary judgment claims so i was appealing this summary judgment you know it looks like to me that the only relief that we could give you would be just to just report aired and you should have been granted summary judgment and if we don't agree with that decision on the remaining issues of whether or not the barriers that we named her days to dismiss the case and all that's in front of us is whether the the district court was correct in to nine summary judgment to you i mean it's kind of odd because usually the end of the would be asking for summary judgment saying you hadn't stated a cause but here you said i'm entitled to summary judgment i win and you dismissed everything and said i'm going to put in the i'm gone for the whole bowl i'm the whole but anna and so i'm saying i'm understanding is that we have not even because we've gotten a little standing and there are still claims that need to be addressed and have not been addressed they were not addressed because the court determined that my client lost  when you're on to richard leonard let me different tribe or for the at politi jr ramona plaza l l c i think you greatly shorten my argument because although i think the standing issue is a potentially interesting issue we never have to reach that and their argument is that well that wasn't listed in the reports wasn't released just recorded saying that it had release the problem with that argument is twofold number one there was a settlement with grossly out that at the time of the original complaint before jr ever answered that settlement was entered in the dismissal against grossly out that was entered the settlement references a report the report covered all of the claims that were made in the original complaint so i looked at the report i'm not an expert on architectural elements nothing obviously jumped out at me as being the slope between the radio shack and the grocery outlet however that when they amended the complaint they they said to change the language and change the claim the problem with that is twofold gross you out that was already released from that claim and there was a covenant not to sue on any other claims  outlet so it might not have been what they allege in the amended complaint might not have been covered in the report but everything that was alleged in the complaint was covered in the report we haven't had to sue as being between mr shaw and grocery outlet and not relating to jar so so it would prevent mr shaw from suing jar so the question would then be well was this claim which is sort of a a demba the obligation to the landlord to maintain the premises and this was part of the grocery outlet facility and so why would gross you out would settle the case and then allow the plaintiffs to amend to allege a new claim that would ultimately impact gross reality that makes no sense and interpret ing the settlement agreement which raises factual issues they just record found that the intent of the settlement was to release this claim but even if it wasn't released it's covered by the covenant not to sue that's what grocery outlet bargained for not to be sued again the fact they got a release from the plaintiffs doesn't mean they got a release from jr and jr could turn around and look back to the tenant and say you're responsible for maintaining your premises so you're saying that this claim the route from the radio shack to a grocery outlet store is not expressly covered in the film an agreement or in the report but that we should interpret it or that the just record properly interpreted this element agreement as covering this claim is do i understand you correctly yes that's the ultimate conclusion to get there though the interpretation of the settlement parole testimony exactly right and that's what the court said the court made a finding that it was the intent of the parties to release all of these claims and that's why i said when i started i think the standing issue is a potentially interesting issue i think we're right on it opposition in the record they did include the separate statement if you look at the separate statement that was filed by jr there is dispute test of all these material facts and we didn't raise the twenty percent limit under eight claims that's where the court got it and put it in her ruling that that was disputed we disputed that the plaintiff encountered any violations it's not totally pertinent to this appeal but if you look at the other violations that were alleged we had very strong showings that they just never existed at all and that this was all sort of made up the even their experts said that our parking lot contain violations their expert did not deal the violation alleged in the subway story about the aisles we felt that all of this was just false and we disputed every one of the material facts i thought for that the fact that you don't dispute something in a summary judgment motion is not it in mission it just means you didn't dispute for the purpose of the motion but we didn't dispute that that slope existed so with this procedural status let me understand what you see as the path that you're asking for you're just saying that we should affirm the district court's denial of summary judgment correct and that just gets rid of the case there's nothing left is that what you're saying well i would i would appreciate a ruling on the standing issue i think it's important issue but i don't think you have to get there because you have to do you know what you want but then you want standing she wants standing to say that even though they dismissed and there's a settlement that still can act as a predicate act to all the other barriers you want us to say that that can't be a that they have to go out and confront a new barrier and then they don't have to confront all the other ones rect i did during clearly if they prove that they encountered one barrier but they haven't proved they encountered any barrier here and now there's another a what you know i don't you know there could be if they let's just say if the court affirmed on the that the so the district court properly denied summary judgment is there anything to prevent them from going out and confronting another barrier out there that doesn't involve the settlement and filing again i haven't thought about it but i guess not or someone else would come out and file and claim there's no other barrier it's not part of the record until i'm hesitant to raise it i don't think that can happen for a variety of reasons but i don't think we have to get there but from a standing room for i think i can councillors use of standing is misleading there standing and there's mootness and they're related they're not exactly the same council keep saying if you have standing you always have standing well maybe you always have standing but a case can become moot it's sort of a continuum of standing when it becomes moot there's no case or controversy there's no subject matter jurisdiction there's no reason that a plane is going to pursue an action that you're talking about article three standing when you're talking about standing and so if in fact that's what you're talking about we can't just give over it i mean we wouldn't have that the claim for the walkway outside a grocery outlet is not covered in the release because although it's a pertinent you grocery outlet it is not mentioned in the report not been through the report and i don't see any mention of this walkway if that's so if we say we reverse the finding that the court made on the release because she misread the release but where does that leave us well i don't think and i'm not sure where to look i want to look at the screen but i can't r you have to keep in mind the chronology here the report came before this allegation was never made the allegations argue the facts to me just tell me if we are if we didn't term in that where does this leave the case the trial court determined that the intent of the settlement was to cover all items that were directly a pertinent to grocery out with that's a fact and mentioned in the report no records in that say facility and not covered in the report so to be released it has to have two conditions one has to be a pertinent to grocery outlet question is if we disagree with the trial judge and we find that she had mis read the settlement agreement and the release then should be reversed and  grant judgment to the plaintiff or what was a situation no because first of all i do not accept the premise that contract interpretation is purely a legal issue procedurally you're still left with an affirmative because you cannot grant summary judgment it becomes an issue a factual issue that has to be determined and one factual facts because the language in the amended complaint is essentially identical to the language in the original complaint with one little twisted change look at the location of where this problem was ramps but based on the fact that he was wrong about the parking spaces he was wrong about the subway his expert acknowledged that the parking lot did not violate any rules we believe this is all pretext to evidence that his claim about the alleged slope from grocery outlet to radio shack was denied what we denied was that he encountered any of these problems that he just changed the wording so it was so it was no longer in the report because he changes that the location the report was already a fait accompli but we also alleged this twenty percent problem which is a basis to deny summary judgment in any event that was that's why this is a strange procedural normally you'd be hearing in the peel from the granting of the some rejection much as you did in the first case this morning this is an appeal from the denial and in this situation if there's any fact in the then the decision of the court was correct this is the procedure this is the posture we're in in this case it's an unusual posture but that is what we have mr l mentioned something that interests me you mentioned that the twenty percent problem was found to exist as a as a spiritual issue of fact by the trial judge can you tell me just what that twenty percent problem is how is you have to dedicate twenty percent of your remodelling budget when every doing the work to eighty eight problems and our position was we had put in much more than twenty percent to eighty eight problems we had  as that so in that i mean a lot of the arguments that were made here were never argued by john ramona however i would like to point out that there were no disputed issues of fact as two planes are standing regarding the barriers based upon the encounter with the excessive slope there is no dispute regarding mr shaw standing on the slope and we could that definition but you don't mention that on the property there's a garage then you're saying it doesn't exclude the garage even though the garage is on the property right because it's not specifically include it was not specifically included but in extinguishes all claims on a particular piece of property we have to be and both are impertinent and included in the report so it was not included in the report dated this accord did not address that question and i think you have a colorable argument based on the non inclusion of the ramp in the facility the ramp is a perk to the grocer grocery outlet facility so why doesn't that general language overrule your restrictive