morning the ruling sweethearting denial of the motion for reconsideration as well as its missile with prejudice of the entire case i know from putting in my moving paper we were having a hard time getting the pro hockey chase status we thought that we were being diligent we thought that we were putting everything together i've outlined that in our briefs and simply by june thirtieth of twenty seventeen we had not yet been granted the ability to be able to file in the nevada district court we didn't have standing to do so i did not username or a password for that i believe that they had your honor so why didn't local counsel file a motion for an extension of time or file anything with the court i think that was a failing i believe that was a failing on my part your honor that i thought that i could get it done and i did and maybe they said no it's really not very clear well then on june thirtieth i was still filing or attempting to file to receive the pro hockey chase status and one thing that i would note and i'm not sure it's real clear for having papers when i reviewed them is that we didn't realize when we mailed the documents says the court that they had not been received so it really was a surprise to us when the dismissal order came down two weeks later on july that's our belief yes we did not do nothing as a matter of fact we felt like we were attempting all along and still trying to get the pro of each a status via the e file and it did come about believe agreement with the motion or what was it exactly that to tell you the truth your honor i really don't know i do think it was a sanction for us not having all of our ducks in a row and not having had the pro at the chase status filed correctly at motion to reconsider there was something where you indicated that it had slipped your mind and that's why you hadn't filed the motion for an extension of time is that accurate with regard to bringing the case to nevada in the first  on the i'm sorry your question again so if you fail to follow the opposition to the motion to dismiss in california correct and then was there a motion for reconsideration of that ever filed i'm sorry i don't recall i don't think that there was i thought that all the factors being what they were that the move to nevada was inevitable and i thought that the motionless well taken i will note however that in opposition counsel's movement papers he referred to us filing in california as forum shopping and that's simply not the case i wasn't licensed in the vada and i was licensed in california and that's where the headquarters were and so that's why california was initially chosen as the as the forum it says but it couldn't have been because in fact the motion the opposition once you got time to file it wasn't even filed for several days it probably didn't exist at the time that's correct because we the paper that's correct that it wasn't a motion in opposition to the motion the dismissal was just a motion for a request for extension of time the request for extension told that to her the paralegals declaration is incorrect i'm sorry say it again please to that degree of the paralegals declaration is incorrect he said it was in opposition to the motion the dismissal wasn't i think it was anything else only and i've said this in my moving papers and i'll just reiterate it very very briefly is that i just think that the sanction was extremely harsh and for that reason i think the abuse of discretion standard applies before it began go ahead i have a question for you yes so although i really was this case is probably controlled by procedural issues i would like to hear a little bit about the merits of the underlying claim from your perspective yes your honor with respect to the underlying claim the appellee plaintive has three claims the first one is for title seven violations on the basis of a number of protected characteristics there is no merit to that claim because it is time barred as she failed to exhaust her administrative remedies timely with claim because these are private parties there is no state action no action under color of law the third claim is under nine hundred eighty five for conspiracy and i believe in the great american  the court held that a nine hundred eighty five claim cannot be premised on a title seven violations the way that she has played her claim so if the appellee appellant in this case why make it why just not get rid of the k we attempted to we will but you did file a motion for change of venue and he wasn't and which led to all that a lot of the confusion here because he wasn't  truman went a week after the deadline for the opposition notice of non opposition was filed with the court pursuant to the california local court rules which are similar to the dramatic court rules and there is a provision that says a failure to timely file points  authorities in opposition may be deemed to consent to granting however in that case the appellant then did file a request for extension of time the california district court allowed an opposition i believe or would have given time asked to reconsider and given this information about the fact that something was filed just pretty much ignored that in fact your honor the district court s order did include an address the fact that the plaintiff appellant had claimed to have made an attempt to paper file and to have mailed filing a filing for an extension for requests for time to the court however we as the defense counsel never received a service or a copy of anything that was allegedly mailed we never seem to phone call from the appellate plate of had they actually attempted to mail in service should they not have also served a copy on us as the defense they did not do so we've never seen any such filing the court hasn't seen such finally and that was specifically included in the court's order to mine a motion for reconsideration was there ever any contact between the plaintiff lawyer and you were whoever was handling the case regarding an extension of time or the issues with service no your honor i didn't receive any communications and i am the lead counsel in nevada and is that on their record that i don't think there was and i was i don't believe there was a place in the underlying record because i don't think we filed as the defendants anything once the court received the court the request for reconsideration i believe the court ruled pretty quickly on our local court rule and it's not permissive it says that that the failure to file appointed authorities shall be shall be a consent to that i mean our case law we nonetheless run it through the sanction standard yes the five factor test your honor yes so yes and so why did the standards for sanctions apply here i think they apply because at least three of the factors strongly favor dismissal the five factors of course include that the public's interest an expeditious resolution of litigation and we have case law that says that that always weighs in the facts favor of dismissal similarly the court has to manage its docket and the court the district court is in the superior position to determine what is necessary and appropriate as a sanction and that the court will look to whether there is any clear error in the court's determination that that's the appropriate sanction the third factor is i think we're there is the most discussion of dispute and that's whether there's any court may do so and i think this is an appropriate case to do so because even if the court remands it back to the district court we're going to rebury for a third time then the substantive merits of the motion to dismiss because that as well n the nevada court now i guess he said i need three days or something like that ok anything else unless you have any other questions for me or no questions days i understand what you're saying your honor that's what was attempt i mean it's just irritating to be spending i mean i am my own sense is that procedurally maybe this is questionable but what are we doing here i understand