you please the court my name is clarence pollard i represent the appellant in this matter william charles torres i would like to reserve four minutes for rebuttal if i may your honors i have several points that i'd like to clarify that i believe will be helpful for the court including an oral motion to correct two errors that i recently discovered one in the record and one in my brief but i would be happy to begin with questions from the court if the court would prefer that counsel would you leave a memorandum with the clerk and three begin with my statement are the questions your honor we would like to clarify three points actually four points that we believe we made in our opening and reply breached and on the record but again i believe would be helpful for the court  to have the clarifications that i prepared for the first point is that it is critical for the court to understand the nature of the error of the court's ruling that the procedures of the sexual harassment the denial of due process as required by the sexual harassment law particularly the rule of three procedures required to be applied to those allegations by a sexual harassment law in the state actor of the federal  was that's a good question i don't have the answer to that we mr torres filed the complaint process a in fall in peril court and when i came on board later on i believe there was a part which asked the court or exercise supplement first action to resolve all the issues in one place our gender claims and also rejected our attempt to amend the complaint to add race and proceed disability claims and then dismissed the compliant and dismissed the action yes that's correct your honor being due process is required by the sexual harassment law i'm taking i'm a little confused it sounds to me as though the complaint is not really that he was denied his constitutional right of due process but that he was denied being reassigned to before there was a disciplinary hearing as required by the collective bargaining agreement furthermore we believe that mr torres was prevented from performing certain duties when he returned to his regular facility after four months of being at another facility and we believe that this denial of duties or this was traction in d c was improperly based on the investigation that was  would be considered or could be considered in future actions personal actions that he might try to undertake and that we believe also that he was there was a stealing placed on his ability to advance in the department of public seven and that was dismissed why not dismiss an emory man's estate claim to the state court i don't know that we are allowed to given that it's been two years since we first filed i'm not sure that we're able to toll the it's entirety i understand but it could have been tried out and could have been measured under state law if it were remained it to the state court the federal court doesn't have to proceed with the state line i understand that your honor but i guess what i'm confused by as we ask the district court exercise jurisdiction the court exercised jurisdiction and my understanding is that we can therefore appeal whatever decision the court renders you seven right to sue letter yes we did your honor the that issue was not discussed by judge was built nor was it the subject of any arguments or briefing before the lower court if i may continue please join us actually i should stop now i have twenty seconds remaining  of procedural and otherwise to the title seven and the state claims and all were dismissed in one order and the judgment and chart the one issue that i want to discuss primarily is the plaintiff's claim under california government code eight ag government code eight one five point three is that there has to be a mandatory duty and the district court found in the city believe the evidence also supports that there was no mandatory requirement that the city use civil service commission all three procedure because an alternative procedure w reserve the moment for rebuttal go ahead adopted by the first commission under rule three for the disposition of sexual harassment allegations in the department public health and gloria louis in her declaration page two of her declaration lines fifteen to sixteen of these rules and the purpose of a declaration seems to be just to say that it is not the human rights commission that is to resolve these disputes but rather they are to be resolved within the department but she does not say that no other rules apply she explicitly these are the rules that apply in her declaration and it's it is therefore that we believe that judge cristol erred in finding that she was saying that there are other procedures applied thank you