did not meet their burden of proof and that judgment should be rendered for adams and piper and nd the invention was within the district court inherits supervisory powers addressed the collateral issue to the case and was absolutely necessary to curb court may not reverse it and the th circuit said in two thousand and twelve that the district court findings would only be clearly rony as if one of these three applied st the findings are without substantial  what i would say is that what the justice says is child protective services and any other person or entity conceivably correlated to them which means they're not going to be able to go out and make another c p s complaint against adamson paper and very st paragraph of the permanent injunction this specifically addresses the against adams type or to child protective services these were comparable to be made but no miniscule amount of truth to any of them and so without that st paragraph it might be a little overbroad but because in the was none whatsoever with regard to the basis for their c p s complaint and they did again you didn't you didn't ask for the injunction i mean it was so egregious so you are going now you i don't know if you tried to case but i mean it trial and further we actually sought sanctions against appellant but the district court declined to do so and that issued the permanent injunction to respond that we did not request that we did speak something higher than that which were sanctioned and  a court declined to issue the sanctions but in order to curb their bad behavior issues the permanent injunction it was a collateral issue because the district court stated that it was their their behavior that he was trying to curb with this permanent injunction and in fact with regard to this injunction he went into detail process and listing all of the  the lease and they could not do that they couldn't prove that it was a breach through the dogs because the dog was not a pet it was an emotional support animal which is what makes the fair housing act relevant to this case they cannot prove it with regard to their which was registered as an emotional support animal before it was even brought into the unit and so there the registration certificate on file in the evidence and evidence has a date of registration  you know you bob and we've been here so help me understand why isn't the landlord able to say it's a straight line breach if he had that proof and went to him and told him about it not you seem to be changing an argument then what was presented below there was a landlord and or prior to the emotional support animal being brought home and involved in the boat versus hunter case the district court of oregon held that the landlord violated the fair housing act by failing to provide an exception to the no pet policy for the individual suffering from anxiety and depression much like miss adams here there's no duty under the fair housing act to inform the landlord before you bring home the ant the emotional  animal that it is an emotional support animal reasonable accommodations must be requested but the fair housing act is with regard to when that accommodation needs to be made and in fact the fair housing act does not say that that combination is the mate ahead of time as such because there was no there were the findings are not against the preponderance of credible testimony the there is nothing in the record to indicate that the district court misinterpreted the evidence and defense they had general defenses specific denials and so they had the facts in order to beyond the fair housing act and one of the findings that the district court made was that although adams was not required to make a deposit she offered to make one and the landlords declined to take it and put it in one day notice that vacate the very next day as this was less than to call them imaginary lurie claims that that stemmed from something other than a breach of the lease best then from something other than adam's bringing home a nd dog it stems from some mysterious vendetta that they they've attempted a couple of different times in order to see if there would be a walk away it's been the party that it just was never something that the landlord who owned a law firm would entertain the young men or if it's for these is something that that the corporate better housing in point at that point the courts have i believe supplemental opinion thank you so that concludes our cases for the argue for today