governmental injuries of canyon county in this case which was incorrect but canyon county was seeking was not life was sought by the time of west hartford and in hawaii which were antitrust cases in which the states were suing under the clayton and i trust act the district court should have applied the reasoning that this court issued in d s versus cage which held that under rico which has a looser proximate causation and business or injury standard in their nine thousand nine hundred sixty four see that all that is required is an interest to business or property caused by a predicate act of record tearing injury the district court was incorrect in reading into rico the requirement that there be a commercial injury involved or commercial interests involved in the lawsuit the district court found that commercial injury and commercial interest from these antitrust cases whole y e and town of west hartford but the ninth circuit has never recognized any such restriction understander rico well but you're right i think i'm familiar with the as i think i there in what oakland county was suing for in paying higher prices well except they were a consumer and tell me how you might qualify as the consumer in any of these situations with saying to me that you you want to recover for providing public services you know that is what that's what mr politics do oakland county may have been a consumer of water or statute and said well we have this a more fair standard which we believe applies you can't use rico in this your injury is what we consider to be a racketeering injury and i think that is more or less what the district court did here the district judge said your injury as i see it is not a commercial injury and so again essentially can see that you're not you're you're not receiving any goods or services from the defendant correct in footnote fourteen which has no analogue in rico didn't allege that and i'm not aware that it does nor is any required in an i trust case is typically that there is a an agreement between the parties to purchase something at a particular price and plaintiffs often are suing because they say that that price was artificially high doing a due to a price fixing conspiracy of some kind or an interference with competitive forces which is what  are the best cases they clearly show that the county has stated an injury to its property and that there is no special commercial interest requirement imposed on the county if it is you're saying that that that's where you say that that doesn't need to be shown but d s was an individual not public not a county entity so you're asking to take the county entity from one and the injury india's then put that together and apply it over to the county so i'm saying that it's a step further as far as i can tell the district judge is correct in his statement that there was no order applicable precedent for this exact type of case in the ninth circuit so the there is no ninth circuit case in which a governmental entity has sued for the cost of providing services that's true but the ninth circuit has said that there's no it's nothing but there's no rico case or antitrust case ever in the entire country that has ever recognized the municipal cost recovery rule whole why they did not recognize a ton of hartford did not recognize it there is no ninth circuit  that has ever recognized that defense in a federal question only in diversity cases that are brought under the common law of negligence which was in flagstaff how it arose the common law of arizona in which the  seeking just ordinary tort damages under state common law in order to get where the district court went here you would have to find that there is this edition of a standing requirement under rico that applies when a governmental entity sues republican philippines case did not find that there was any such requirement when it sued here and it was seeking money damages the court did not press a commercial interest injury any and i trust injury or anything further on them and no court has done that except town of hartford did that in that case where the town was not seeking the type of damage injury they wanted to plead it that way they argued it that way that was their theory in that case that is not the county's theory and in this case reading this in the proper light th which this court in mendoza vs circle through a letter found that were proper which raised no special standing requirements above and beyond the proximate cause requirements that the supreme court had already found existed in rico the defendants have argued here that the county does not have standing to sue also under the supreme court's recent decision in  steel and according to the defendants the supreme court has further tightened the requirements to have proximate cause ation in rico and that decision respectfully we disagree with that all go through the three steps and say first and foremost is there another more directly injured party that could be counted on to sue for the damage caused by the predicate act alleged i mean give got that ok you have the illegal alien and that if they break the causal chain there that was that case was arising under the same predicate acts that we've alleged here they also say that the united states government is not the party that has been damaged and cannot be doesn't count either to break through the chain of for money damages it was a broad concept as the supreme court said in city money if the county is not allowed to sue to recover its municipal costs that have it has incurred because illegal illegal immigrants have been moved into the county and are using public services then the county is not going to be able to recover from anyone just won't be able to recover the public policy argument would be that that son just it shouldn't be that way the county has to pay services for people that are not entitled to receive public services under federal law the county should be able to recover running from the people who are know we're talking about though we the county doesn't want to have to process illegal immigrants that get arrested for committing crimes through its criminal justice system through its courts put them in its jail have to pay for them if they weren't employed by the defendants they wouldn't their crimes are they committed they're not being arrested for drugs drug crimes in many situations has nothing to do with their being hired by the defendants a judge it does if they weren't in the county working for the defendants they wouldn't be there committing those crimes or have to sure sue their parents and i think that goes too far your honor if if they weren't there working for those defendants the counties these people also wouldn't be on the indigent fund that can in county provides which have been pleaded in this complaint and the district court was obliged to interpret the complaint as it was written and not read into it additional facts that weren't there it's just a motion to dismiss a twelve b six motion there are a lot of things that could be posited to defeat the claims of proximate cause ation but is this court held in mendoza versus circle it is not appropriate for judges to read into which the arguments of counsel their own personal life experience into the cases they are required just to let you do it have to have an allegation of causation and that doesn't have so many steps and with that you raise all the concerns that talked about and yes it's  it seems to me and i suppose if you look at mendoza you've got one step to make the the hiring on these i'm not in it workers permits are lower wages and that affects us as workers and the same and or friends and i think the hiring is just not nearly as closely related to the provision of  enforcement or health services that it requires assumptions that the county would not have to give those services to other workers seems to me that just many hires illegal immigrants that those people are going to commit crimes there in the community and end up on the public payroll that is not too much of a stretch to break the chain of proximate cause they sure do soon they will commit crimes of a higher rate than other workers mine i don't believe so your honor i don't have to prove those things they shouldn't have been there if they hadn't been there the county wouldn't have to put those people have to pay any money for those people not for those people but for some people but sure they would have to pay for some people we're talking about and the county can determine specifically who the illegal immigrants were who these companies hired and which ones of them ended up on the county's indigent find and which kent county can allege that these illegal immigrants shouldn't have been on this public payroll at all i don't think it has to prove that non illegal immigrants would have been a certain number of them would have been on the public payroll that much larger percentage of these people and up on the dole are getting benefits from the county then ordinary law abiding citizens who have permanent homes in the community and live in the community we can show that to the best of our ability through an expert but beyond that it's not we are not required to show precisely to the penny every single what the exact amount of damage would be  things illegal immigrants weren't working for one of these companies they might have to seek public welfare you have to pay me even more they wouldn't be in kenyan county why not they were these companies hired your honor were brought in for the purpose of working there from outside the company they ended up a large portion of them on the company's dole paying with a cut where the county had to pay money for them in the count on the county's dole yes the county had to expend money because of crimes that they committed and providing them with well first services which you wouldn't have had to have done if those defendants had hired them and your time is i think you thank you your honor my name is read some athletes have agreed your honor to divide our twenty minutes into and i'm going to do ten minutes on the standing issue that is whether or not the county has been injured in its business or property for purposes rico standing and then my colleague mr morello is going to do the second ten minutes on the rico and so causation question and any rico pleading issues all right and present i see three people at counsel table who al incurred here the increase cost for police services or for indigent health care that these services do not under correct interpretation of section one hundred sixty four of rico do not constitute an injury to business or property and your honor is a very well established principle of common law it's not just this court's decision by judge can if you now justice kennedy in the black stamp case that's one decision the d c circuit has recognized it the second circuit has recognized it the seventh circuit and that goes to judge kennedy's analysis of the rationale behind the rule which is one to protect the resupply expectations of the parties because no one expects the government to recoup its cost or to act as a government and provide government services and under rico because the revenue rule would indicate that if canada wants to spend that money on law enforcement to enforce its tax laws another sovereign that is united states would not the system but what i think is so interesting about the second circuit's opinion that's just not true if you read town of west hartford among the litany of damages that the town there was seeking to recover was the cost of law enforcement services and indeed second circuit and the attorney general of canada case in law enforcement costs are not recoverable under rico so the second circuit certainly thinks that what if that's what its earlier panel said in the town of west hartford now which is true that town of west hartford reached that conclusion by an analogy to the  rico so it certainly appropriate and the supreme court of the united states did in hawaii version the standard oil of california take up that issue look at the nature of the claim that there was the state of hawaii the nature of the injuries and say these are not the type of injuries that you that one would have standing for under the clinton name and it's because it's an act of sovereign authority and the town of west hartford the second circuit looked to the hawaii decision and reached the same conclusion with respect to the law enforcement costs in that case so it seems we do have the second circuit decision now which dictum but we do have that decision and here's what's really interesting when the second circuit wrote attorney general of canada and drop that footnote trying to enforce and recover damages with respect to that contract and that is not the situation here and as your honor points out d has just wasn't even dealing with a governmental entity attempting to recover under rico and that's the difference and we are to say that this court should write an opinion that says there's a personal injury requirement to have standing for a governmental entity you don't need to go that far the only thing that's in front of this panel is whether a governmental entity can recover for it cost to provide basic governmental services that's all that's here there may be other situations where a governmental entity could recover judge kennedy a chance if you have a few in planck's pay off he said there could be a property physical property damage tortfeasor that runs into the city hall you know where the city owns the property perhaps that might be somehow connected to record sharing and might be an injury but where you're talking about the provision of basic public services that's wh go to your question your honor about waivers because i don't think you could read the district court's opinion as it leaves the district court concluding that the county did concede that the municipal cost recovery rule applies they certainly conceded that the canada and see that there is this broadly recognized common law rule i think you can reach the proper interpretation of the one nine hundred sixty four c with all of the tools that are have been you know laid at our disposal by the u s supreme court which has told us where to that government should not be able to cover for whatever bottom parodic matic government services has been the case for over a hundred years it's been the case in the context of federal cases state cases involving federal government claims it's involved state are really only two to please here where you can recover and that is for the there has to be some commercial relationship it isn't quite as a contractual a ship or some other type of commercial relationship where there has to be some sort of property injury i think those are the two that comes into contact with alleged illegal immigrants to be defendants in this kinds of lawsuits they're going to allow the charities to be the subject of these kinds of lawsuits financial institutions that process payments for alleged illegal aliens landlords that rent to alleged illegal aliens would be no limit whatsoever to the concert in the context of kind of the kinds of civil cases that we're talking about here and i think with respect to the other public policy point the u s government can and this was a subject of questioning beyond those two potential victims the plaintiffs in this case of absolutely have not predicated their theory on anything that would compel you to expand civil rico for any reason and one other important point that i'd like to make is just care services and there are federal and state statutes that reimburse the county for the provision of federal enforcement services for incarceration of illegal aliens and also for the provision of emergency care so you're going to determine what the county seek reimbursement where they in fact reimburse then you're going to have to analyze whether or not the contributions that the defendants made cancel any expenditures we provide health care benefits so did we even encourage any injury third you're going to have to it just a couple of other points to address some issues that came that you were dressed no one u s versus standard oil was a u s supreme court case in which the federal government so reimbursement for the health care services provided to an injured soldier and the court held that under the municipal cost recovery room the federal government could not recover those services you asked about whether there was a case involving health care services one other point that i want to make even have a distinct enterprise and by the plaintiff's own allegations and i refer you specifically to the first two minute complaint paragraphs eighteen nineteen and twenty years really no independence between us and the enterprise indeed in paragraph eighteen say at the temp agency the police are really at bottom our own employees and in paragraph twenty they say that we have never really outsourced this function to temp agencies by their own allegations in their own complaint they're saying that we are operating ourselves interpretation of what harboring requires you socially rendering the harboring provision and all that you cannot simply have employment equal harbor there has to be something else this court has held that something else has to be to afford shelter to there's simply no allegation here that we were doing anything other than employing these alleged illegal aliens no allegation whatsoever about anything in addition to that to constitute harboring so at a minimum as a matter of law the harboring all right does any of your other counsel want to use the time you decide still has you still have this time they have remaining you still have two minutes and twenty seconds so if anyone on this side wants to use it or forever hold your peace all right thank you i'll give a parent one minute for  order for the county just to in mendoza versus zirkle there was a contractual relationship between the employees and the employer that didn't stop the night circuit from holding at the employees nevertheless could still bring their rico case for their damages complexity of the injuries were acknowledged by the ninth circuit in mendoza versus circle in the court said that that had to be dealt with by experts later in the proceeding and finally if chattanooga sewerage services why can't canyon counties to those are the same municipal recoveries that they are seeking for services that they provide for their citizens and i think the court very much thank you