the district court here iran asli granted a motion to dismiss my client's section one thousand eight hundred three claims and it does so on the basis of the statute of limitations so really we've got two fairly narrow issues here on appeal the first one is when did my client section one hundred three claims arise and is this discriminatory church discriminatory charge that the utility company is charging them does it constitute a continuing ill of the original violation or a continuing unlawful effect that would told the statue of limitations so you know before we get into it review this thing to novo you're supposed to accept all the facts of the complaint is true make all reasonable inferences possible in favor of the complaint and since this is a motion to dismiss it's got to be obvious from the face of the complaint that the statute of limitations doesn't fact bar the lawsuit so i don't know how much of the facts you all are familiar with so all start with them in december of two thousand and nine the board here  large engineering to put together a sewer plan for this unincorporated community in plaskett county the plastic county as you probably know it's where little rock is but this is outside the city limits probably closer to north  i'm just trying to give it some color i'm trying to give it some color your honor but i will move on your brief does it ok so let's just say i thought what was interesting to learn and yours second argument about the significance of finishing the sewer system versus the coerced agreement yes all the things that mr humphrey did or others did on his behalf to to urge every agreement right and so you're getting to the point why doesn't the signing of those crimes or pump agreements cause the statute of limitations to start running that's that's the issue a look at here is it certainly did certainly cause them to start running well it  agreements were not an official act of the board marmaris plans were approved by the u s d a in two thousand and ten those plans provided sewer gravity for everybody the entire community at no point did that board of this is was born and raised the accrual in the continuing violation doctor and the distinction i always learned was a merger is a one time event that has constant after effects but it is on like a can a price fixing a continuing price fixing conspiracy which requires new bad acts every day and this one strikes me as analogous to a merger it was it was an event the adverse consequences of which were or should have been immediately apparent well i why am i on the wrong  so there is a continuing unlawful discrimination occurring here because the north will rock waste water department charges everyone in this community know the rates i mean the rates are set by the bad act but here's the differen everyone but my clients these few other families don't have to pay once they pay that rate to the sewer department they don't have to pay for anything else the sewer department maintains the sewer lines replaces the sewer lines does all that stuff but not when it comes to these grindr pumps these broader pumps require electricity and they have to expend to replace and maintain so my client is paying for those things that no other super gravity person in this community charge that rate each month that is a brand new discrimination it is in this argument is it out of a ted fact there's a case called i think that's how i pronounce it i know it's not binding on this court but it does demonstrate so in this case the gist of it is the plaintiff own like a four unit hotel or something along those lines in the city changed the way it rated the this court or in this case in this particular case there was a one nine hundred eighty three action and the statute limitations there was two years three years here in this case fees these calculations were based on the motel having five minimal rooms and four apartments so the court finds that plaintiff continued to suffer as a result of the alleged discriminatory act through june of two thousand and six when defendants again reclassified i guess the point of meat side into this case you think that you think that nine hundred eighty three gives every citizen in our arkansas or get into a dispute jurisdiction in the federal court for the limitations issues and i don't claim to be an expert on everything one nine hundred eighty three what i'm trying to say is there was a continuing one of the very first things we have to determine is whether we have jurisdiction over the issue you send you've got to be you're saying you're here your damages or the money that you had to pay so it's a claim for damages of some sort i guess they're right yes and it's also a claim for an injunction against the defendants so that they will stop charging this discriminatory  but my point is every time that the utility charges the rate that is a new discriminations i understand the coerced contract what was going on and the sewer system wasn't completed until november of twenty thirteen at any point prior to that any of these public officials could have weighed in and said listen board listen more are put charged are like a continuing unlawful effect so if you look at the cases where you have continuing ills instead of continuing lawful acts there are different  district court relied on bricks but in rick's what happened was a professor was denied tenure that was an official formal decision and they made him sign of one year contract so he could work another year in that he was terminated argued that when he was terminated was when the statute limitations run ran and the court said no it was when you got news of the formal announcement from the committee there was nothing like that here there was no formal anything but life in the contract a formal anything they've signed up for the terms well everyone agrees upon it based on the facts as alleged in the complaint it was induced by fraud it was induced by fraud it's still a contract the cause of the cause of the harm ok so one of the things that alleged in the complaint is that there was no hearings pre or post deprivation of any nature of any kind all right there was never a formal or official position taken it was simply this notion of this renegade board member the chair of the the president who decided hey i'm going to slip these grindr image to these people and tell him it's because of fraudulent reasons monson there was a fella who was in a psych ward and he had been granted there's like five different levels of liberty you're granted in the psych ward and he was like a level four which is high and then the the the agency got rid of his freedom and demoted him and he brought a suit and in this particular case each day that he was denied that liberty was a continuing unlawful effect that's analogous to each month being to be the case that that's not cruel a cruel cruel a cruel expects plaintiffs to err on the side of getting to court promptly action for due process done for ugly a fraudulent in this country well no it's based on the fact that they didn't get a priori post deprivation hearing concerning the sewer system at any point in fact when he follows this complaint he didn't get a hearing all we get  effectively yes so he's been damaged by breach of contract he's been ok the because he was denied pre and post deprivation due process because he's been discriminated against and he's been damaged he's had to pay more for a sewer system than the people who were discriminated against in the people who got this gravity ssris in any time there's a breach of contract or do over what i want as i want for this to be reversed and remanded back to the district court so now nona i know who you are i know i will what do you want to know in the district court but my friend you want you what you want an injunction against these rates right correct without a due process do over so it's not a due process clash it well if we could get ok so we're out we're i'm outside walking obviously i came here prepared to argue stretch limitations issues none of these issues have yet been raised that you're bringing up what will this will this will stick to the ok thank you but you understand we have we have an obligation to determine whether we have jurisdiction over your behavior yes sir i do understand that and i never got a using up my rebuttal time so i've got a i've never refocused the whole reason i've come up with this thing that been arguing this extent that that it distinguishes cases consequences of a decision that is alleged to be discriminatory we know two things from the face of the complaint in the image complaints which is what this court looks at in determining whether the district court correctly dismissed them first is at some point between april twelfth two thousand and ten and october twenty third two thousand and eleven which is when these agreements were signed roberts the chairman of the bor  decision that they would be getting drunker punched rather than gravity sooner second thing we know is when they signed the agreements again on october twenty third two thousand and eleven those agreements clearly set forth those consequences discrimination in what way  your i don't i don't you're just the issues he had a contract or he had a he thought he had a deal for gravity and you told him no it's not going to be gravity and what's the constitutional issue here the constitutional issue what would how is this violating the constitution this transaction your daughter appellants they bring their claim under section that the hook they have that over who's who because this was being built with federal funding this subdivision or this sewer system or what  that it appears to me that that is the type of action that is being asserted is being brought under not to a three which now is not a basis of subject matter jurisdiction title six claim would be more that comes from well of  alleging a violation of federal statute that's something that nine hundred eighty three probably provides jurisdiction for but just a run of the mill cause of action more than three years after the citizen that is alleged to be discriminatory was communicated clearly to the appellants by ray roberts and after they signed unambiguous contracts setting forth these  consequences the humphries brought their their clients and the district court accordingly determined that they were barred by the three year statute of limitations that applies to night and eighty three claims in arkansas which no one disputing the the the amount of time and this court should affirm the district court in all respects how the how is this closer to the situation where the fellow gets a letter you're going to be denied tenure but he stays on for a year and then is terminated how is a close to i think your position this is closer to that kind of situation that it is when you've got a violation say that or some kind of deprivation of of rights and it just keeps going on every day that you continue to violate this individual's rights and so it's an ongoing claim how is it closer to the ten year and then it is sort of the ongoing violation of a right when you've got a rate that you're paying monthly weekly yearly the checks go it's good question i think it's much more analogous to rick's and those supreme court a lot of cases denying tenure that involve contracts like we have in this case and the reason is that that's the alleged act of discrimination everything flows from these you have to then allege an ongoing scheme or something like that that somehow that the rates themselves as they continue to pile up or be sent out for payment that that's and that separate scheme how how would that ever become a violation ongoing violation those would have to be a wage been shown to be discrete separate acts of discrimination that in this case they have a connection a very strong on to the active discrimination that is bar the decision to provide bronner pumps to the humphries and not grabbing sewer it's clearly spelled out of a contract the contract states that they are inevitable consequences of signed those agreements and getting the grinder plus if if your client had not charged them extra for this system then what would the no contract and if we just had these alleged acts a discriminatory rate for them if they weren't the damask because they were charging him right i'm not sure there would be a claim that they wouldn't have had any sort of damage they wouldn't be able to speak of the brits as part of the interior is the reduction in the fair market value of the houses because they got a crummy sewer system or they have one that's more expensive they have a house it's more expensive to operate at least there is some expense associated with these grindr pumps but again that is clearly spelled out and was communicated but council got up and correct again that was that was part of signing the agreement they agreed to do that back in two thousand and eleven it's presumably just now occurring and they're feeling the effects of that contract and that decision you know they also don't allege enough that they believe they would be required to if if they wanted to make the the discriminatory charges they allege a discreet act of discrimination from which the limitations period would run that other people in the community got run or pops didn't have to pay those charges and they don't allege that in the complaint that's what rick says and that's not in the complaint anywhere so there's no difference between them and the other recipients of the grinder pops everything goes back to this agreement in this decision that was clearly communicated to them back in two thousand and ten and two thousand and eleven immaterial because of this agreement that they signed they were aware that the plan was to give them grinder power and not this sewer system they were aware at that moment and they were aware they would have to pay for it it says they would pay for the system from being built that way they went to every other they went to senators they went to other people to try to stop this why couldn't they file the very complaint that was filed here seeking a preliminary injunction appellant counsel referred to the chacha scase in nevada district court in support of his claim about these rates and i would just note that that case is different because the court noted the rates there started at one level and then later changed and so they that was their basis for seeing a discriminatory act later a continuing unlawful act opposed to a continuing ill effect here we just have the agreement that says you'll have to pay there's nothing in the complaint that says after october two thousand and eleven that changed these rates didn't start some time after that about his liberty and in that case the eighth circuit observed if it were clear that month's complaint related solely to the creation of the policy we would have little difficulty rejecting the continuing violation theory however because he was proceeding press say the court said we'll give him a shot they did not rule in any way and say these were continuing unlawful acts they said remand to district court for s and even if they continue in violation doctrine applied in this case the appellant's do not meet the element because there are no allegations of continued unlawful act in the complaint meir an action is not enough and that all that happened after twenty eleven the pellets went to various they went to marler they went to the board they went to the u s d a and asked if it could be changed and they said no they just continued the same decision that these three or five watch what with three laws that are on the granger system could be have been served with sewer service gravity like the rest granted because we didn't we have not even delved into the marriage i don't know the answer to that question we although the district court simply ruled on such a limitation what was that if if you didn't get into that what was the discrimination you think was alleged here the the first minute can amended complaint alleges under nine hundred eighty three claims for setting to them procedural due process and equal