one simple issue for this court to decide which will determine whether the plaintiff should be jealous of the successful and i simply did the plaintiff's complaint first amended complaint sufficiently give notice to the defendant and to the district court that she was claiming a violation of her state constitutional rights let me ask you something  the california constitution right now if you take issue with that characterization idea you are in the in the balance amended response to th she was asserting a violation of her state constitutional rights and that is  that's true and and as i say it was not artfully drawn and perhaps i should have stuck with my guns and just sit on the on the first amended complaint but but the fact is that it does appear in the first of many complaint and i did point that out  in this in this response like pointed out that quote it should be clear from reading a plaintiff first amid a complaint that she is claiming that both the county and gray's violated her rights to privacy and the fact that her first cause of action only refers to government code sections as a basis for liability and not to the california constitution should not preclude her asserting the byelection of her constitutional rights so it is there and  it should have been argued that we should have just stood on that and i should have just pointed that out to courtney and stopped right there and so that was that was my fault your honor but the fact is that that is presented in the in the first amended complaint  an allegation of a violation and the fact is that because the parents did not take it up in the courts as took that lead the court did not address to the district court did not address it and it is a viable claim or it may be the course in their motion for summary judgment but it should have also been sufficient for the court to pick up on the on the reference to a violation of the of the state california constitution and the district court was able to discern as stated in its in its order it was able to discern that we were asserting a violation of the privacy festival our privacy rights but he limited that consideration to the one nine hundred eighty was sufficient notice and i've been there was that in fact if you look at the defense brief they serve that the plaintiff first complaint was sufficient to alert them that she was claiming violation of her privacy rights under state constitution they said that she failed to do that in her universe from any complaint however but the language was the same so it was there they knew it was there and so basically all we're asking is that the there's only the portion of the district court's order where he dismissed with prejudice and asking under the achree authority since there was a motion to remand in front of him at the time tory are references that invoke injunctive relief and declaratory cason berg analyzed the same section we're dealing with here but analyze due process portion of it and concluded that there was no constitutional right in doing and they noted that neither one of them had specifically addressed the issue as to whether compensatory damages were allowed under article one section one privacy rights but they didn't know that clowes ing had said that  her burden of proof to establish number one as a matter of law that there is a right on number two that the facts apply to that right plaintiff submitted no facts in this case all the facts come from the counties a motion case whether the child would be returned to her mother or not so there is a prosecutorial community that flies as a second point not only is there not a cause of action but there is an immunity i guess we're just so far beyond the real f been on notice i would have addressed it i think of the district court obviously didn't think that he was on notice as well it's obvious from the actions of the parties here that there was no notice given that there was an article one section one  the counselor that had been appointed to the right sir that's right and that counselor then was providing information to the social worker who was preparing her report which is submitted to the judge at this eighteen month hearing the purpose of the hearing was to determine whether the child would be returned to her mother the social worker is the one who develops the evidence is the one who present that evidence to the court and is the one who presents the case on behalf of the health and human services agency to the six of the government code on the state line which defines across the tauriel unity the social worker is the one who is prosecuting the proceeding if you look at it from the federal standpoint i think the case why as i said myers miller versus gammy all of those cases have made it clear that the social worker plays an interpol role in making sure that the case moves along in making sure that the evidence is presented to the judge making recommendations to the judge submitted a motion for summary judgment and left out an issue that was a critical issue if i had been able to identify it as an issue and i respect and judge at the district court level sufficient to believe that if he had thought there was an issue he would have identified it kind of would have told me that i didn't address and either would have been addressed or it wouldn't have been addressed but it certainly would have been addressed in his decision so i think it's clear from the actions of the parties here that there was no notice given but even beyond that if you conclude that there was notice given as a matter of law why do we have to go through the exercise of going back to the state court when it's clear from cats and birds in from the other cases that plaintiff has failed to provide the analysis to suggest that there is a cause of action for plaintiffs rights under the california constitution as well as under the u s constitution and of course the same notice was given of the violation of the california constitution as given the nine hundred eighty three alleged violation individual's right to privacy that's the reason he says if you don't for the first place that's reason he didn't address it in his motion for summary judgment unfortunately because he didn't address that the district judge didn't pick up on it because i was not know fast on the merits actually this court doesn't want to get into the merits of it but he never a dress this issue was a critical issue for tammy the violation of her of her rights to privacy under california constitution and it doesn't deserve to be  destroyed inadvertently by the district judges dismissal with prejudice