longstanding litigation is the concept of rightness which is a concept which has been subject to much confusion during the underlying proceedings as shown in this case the california procedures for just compensation for inverse condemnation are not reasonable certain and adequate under williams and in the case of taking claims for subdivision disapproval which are not right at the time of disapproval the reason for that simply is that under the subdivision statute of limitations of ninety days if a if a claim  taking claim is not right within those ninety days it is forfeited for all time forever the district court was in flat error in its ruling that the taking and due process claims  subdivision disapproval in two thousand and nine rather than approval in two thousand and twelve what had happened by two thousand and twelve that made them write that had not happened in two thousand and nine there was a final definitive  development of the property with the subdivision approval in two thousand and twelve but that was favorable to you and you were trying to challenge something unfavorable to you so how how could it make your case more ripe to have something telling your favor then when you are actually given the denial that you're challenging the taking was not simply the fact of a denial in two thousand and nine in fact if this case had been completed in two weeks after the disapproval in two thousand and nine  there would be very likely no possible claim for taking whatsoever they're taking occurred over the period of three years between disapproval and approval the notion of the approval being an approval and somehow not a issue is a misguided notion what the approval does is not provide a basis for objection nobody's objecting appellant plaintiffs is not objecting to the fact of approval of the subdivision decision reflected by the approval what the approval does is it demarcates clearly under williamson and under norco what the extent of the possible taking is until there was a final determinative decision or a final definitive decision which in this case happened to be in the form of an approval nobody knew what the contours of the taking were was it a permanent taking was it taken for three years by is a taking and then under california law you could first get an adjudication of whether it was a taking and then once that's determined and maybe it would take till two thousand and twelve to figure out for sure of the amount of damages then the second damages no i think there's a very fundamental flaw in that analysis and in that question which is anticipated by williamson and anticipated norco by the way norco was a decision that held rightness to a crew upon an approval about a point of view that was being norco there had been no it agency or county decision up until that point the action was to ask for a decision but you had a decision that you in fact challenge with a manda action no in fact there a couple of reasons a couple of thoughts first of all whether whether or not there had been any agency action the final step the step the demarcated rightness in  was a final approval secondly in fact there had been agency decision after day ninety one and what was at issue here was the ninety day deadline statute of limitations under washington law there was clearly a claim for due process and the local agency in fact did take action by specifically deferring action on the application so there had been action by the book but now i'm i'm having a little problem understanding what the taking i thought but i'm glad that you here so that we can be sure that we understand i thought that the taking was the denial of the ministr if i can williamson makes explain let me refer to noriko first of all norco specifically provided that not only is somebody in our position challenging the disapproval entitled to there was no disapproval norco there was no decision at all well i actually in that case of failure by the local agency to act within the ninety day limitation provided by statute but in any event norco provided that in in those circumstances where there is a claim that is still on right is not only entitle but is actually required to await the right thing to the claim and that specific language from norco required and the reason for that is explained in williamson so if there think your case i clear that it's not just a question of damages but it's the very question of taking that has to await a final definitive decision there interrelated it is not possible to have a notion of  taking as of disapproval and then somehow entirely separately i'm going of damages for disapprove but williamson is about when you can come to federal court not when you can go to state court record and so it seems that in hessler the state court said what you should do in your situation is as part of the mandamus petition also bring your taking claim and when you get an adjudication in state court then you under williams and eventually you can come to federal court if you're still dissatisfied but it seems like you missed a step in the state  not sure why you think that you didn't miss that step the problem is that in two thousand and nine when this was when this was occurring in the disapproval occurred the clear california war had been stated by the california supreme faith in the land gate case that specifically adopted federal liam's and law on rightness so while on the one hand you had in one night i had a ninety day limitations challenging it on wonder and you challenge it underneath so why wasn't final for child you know i think it is very clear i'm if i can reserve my time if this was his last comment i think it is very clear by the very fact that there was a subsequent decision of supervisors that the two thousand and nine decision was not the final definitive decision on permitted use of the land the issue is not whether it was final as to that particular application the issue is whether it was final as to the ultimate question of the permitted development of the land two thousand and nine disapproval was not as manifest in the very fact that there was a two thousand and twelve approval which in fact was the final de court's holding in daniel or the other cases from four other circuits that if you procedurally default your state inverse clean your takings federal takings claim is not right instead he claims that the procedure for compensation in this case as applied to favor could be necessary to ripen his claim that the adverse final decision of the board here was the denial in two thousand and nine that was later overturned by the court of appeal that the the fact that it was overturned by the court does not mean that the agency's decision was not final as to trill and points out that would mean that his initial reduction was and right when he brought it in two thousand and nine mr hunter said cites the supreme court california supreme cour decision land gate interesting choice of case to cite land gate involved a situation where there was an initial writ action that invalidated the agency's decision but in that action the pla together but in the end you know if he argues that he had brought the claims together there would have been an inordinate delay and that that makes this an unavailable avenue do you have a response that you think there would be a delay by bringing the two claims together i see how that would result in delay the real the key point i want to make your honor is that it doesn't matter when when the state claim accrued because his takings lawsuit filed in december two thousand and twelve was too late even if condemnation on your honor's if if there are no further questions from the court i'm prepared to submit on the papers judge toler i added you have any questions i have no questions thank you thank you have a thank you let me see if i can squeeze things in in two minutes williamson again made clear that there is no taking until a claim is ripe that the question of rightness is not just a separate question of when is the taking occur and subsequent damages they are interrelated you cannot tell if the taking has occurred until you know with the passage of time in the case of a temporary taking what have been the economic damages the economic impact upon the of the plaintiff what is the impact upon reasonable investment expectations let me note that williams and in particular beginning with the beginning with the observation that under williamson i believe it is clear that the claim only accrued only became ripe upon approval in two thousand and twelve which demarcated finally what was allowable on the property williams n made clear that it is at that time that one takes a look at state remedies and has to pursue state remedies first at that time in two thousand and line nine was long past we were well past the ninety  limitation period the only possible route we had and we did take it was to proceed under a two step formula that was announced by handler as an exception to the ninety day limitation  two thousand and twelve the subdivision map back ninety days that your limitations was simply no longer applicable it was no or it was not applicable to two thousand and twelve approval because nobody was challenging that it wasn't applicable to the two thousand and nine disapproval because that had long been status ike in the redaction what was at issue then is what is the statue of limitations as had been anticipated by california courts as in patrick media for the underlying claims of counsel thank you the case is submitted cases submitted thank you