may please the court name is david bremer for the appellant in this matter your honors in cities demolished the garrets town home without reasonable notice or knopper tuning to be heard after all liens on the property have been cancelled the taxes paid when the garrets complained the city build them eleven thousand dollars for the cost of the demolition charges now creates a new lien on their property and which is accruing a rate of one percent per month the garrets need relief now and they're entitled to seek that relief in federal court under their federal constitutional claims without exhausting a state inverse condemnation procedure that cannot adequately redress their injuries the hardship from holding with reviewing this case should be clear as i mentioned the garrets need relief sooner not later there's a very real chance that they will lose this property because of a lien that's been on constantly unconstitutionally imposed on their property through an unconstitutional demolition of the state inverse condemnation action cannot provide them with relief that will stop this lea couldn't your honor the inverse condemnation action in louisiana state court could provide damages for the lost value of the building that was demolished but it couldn't enjoy it couldn't provide declaratory relief or any of that sort of relief that would the city has a pattern a policy of not paying out state court judgments although it will pay out federal court judgments and give them preference but it won't pay out state court judgments so even on the compensatory side of the equation the state court  really wouldn't be adequate in this particular case the your honor the court asked about the nick case and i want to address that briefly because of that the nick case only matters in this to the outcome of this case if you arrive at two conclusions one that the garrets due process and see your claims are ancillary to their takings claim and two that the takings claim itself in this case cannot be brought in federal court if either one of those premises is not correct and nic is not relevant to the outcome of this case and the court should not wait for that decision again particularly given that the garrets on they have this this lean on the property they have accruing built there was unconstitutional imposed so they need to get home they need to get relief sooner not wait for a year for the supreme court to issue a decision a neck which has very little relevance to these particular came claims john cork there is one here an unreasonable excuse me seizure claim one of the fourth amendment and in john corp and rosedale the issues weren't fit for review and there was no hardship though that was the ultimate decision in that case and here the opposite re true is true the issues are fit review the building was demolished nobody disputes that the bill was imposed nobody disputes that the hardship is obvious again given the nature of the on the demolition and the bil the city has a pattern unfortunately of failing to provide notice and demolition not taking reasonable precautions and that was what we're asking it to do or at least one part of what we're asking it to do in the walker case in the kennison case and now in this case all three of all the injuries in the room you're on there that case does not apply because the injuries and relief in this case a broader in rosedale the only damages are sought and it's just another way of saying only injury was the last value of the building that was damaged there wasn't an attempt to seek of broader damages under section one nine hundred eighty three there wasn't a problem with a lien a that was imposed because of an unconstitutional demolition as you have here which we're seeking to invalidate and enjoying so in rosedale that is the primary reason for distinguishing it but also in rosedale you didn't have an unreasonable seizure claim and you didn't have the same type of hardship problems you have in this case i don't think the rosedale court was aware of the city's refusal to timely pay our even ever pay out stake or damages judgments so for all those reasons you have a different circumstance here and i think it would be appropriate to distinguish rosedale as well as john core for those reasons so you saying your feel you to pursue a state court remedy is in part based on this pattern that however williamson county is also a prevention will rule it is not a jurisdictional barrier and a production rule requires consideration of all the factors including the hardship of withholding review in the fitness of the issues and the circumstance that you brought up the state courts inability to get the city to honor damages award is a factor in the potential analysis of where the williams accounting should apply to this takings claim and in this particular case because of a confluence of factors including that it would be proper to waive williamson county in under the circumstance of this case in particular because state courts cannot enforce judgments against the city and because you would be splitting the claims in here so you have due process of the see your claims of federal court and takings claim in state court and because of the hardship to the garrets of a needy relief now and the best in the fastest in the proper way to get that relief is to let the claims proceed in the district court and then maybe we can work something out with the city that will resolve that so the short of it that's a long answer to your question williamson county does not categorically apply and in this case it should was previously making the point the city does seem to have a pattern here of of the mall shooting properly properties too quickly you know without taking reasonable cautions in it and i think the best way to send to stop that is to allow o of stop that is to allow the carriage to proceed in this particular case on the under the facts in the federal court and to prove that the city the most to property without adequate process unreasonably and cause the taking in so doing good morning your honour's please the court my name is stephanie dover lena and i'm here on behalf of the city of new orleans very heard from the appellant concerning their position as to why this court should overrule the district court's rulin dismissing their the case for rightness and under the general rule that a claim is unripe that further factual development is required the city supports the decision of the lower court requests that this honorable court uphold that ruling thus far the record in this case is very safe short no discovery has been done the city has not never filed an answer it was simply a twelve b one motion that was filed so there hasn't been a formal position allocated as to what facts are in  and what are not however what isn't in dispute and is supported by both the complaint filed by the appellants the opposition to the city's twelve b one motion to dismiss along with the attachments included in that and the lower court's ruling is that the structure was deemed imminent imminent danger of collapse there's a certain ordinance that regulates imminent danger of collapse and the city demolished it under that procedure in january of two thousand and sixteen the opponents have not sought any redress in state court and didn't bollen inversed condemnation action in state court no facts concerning the particular application of the imminent danger of collapse demolition process have been presented to this court or developed what is before the court is the preliminary determination of the limited if this court of limited jurisdiction has subject matter of your station to hear the case we assert that it's not right the plaintiff's complaint allege constitutional tort under forty two u s c nine hundred eighty three and a denial of due process and just compensation under the fourth fifth and fourteenth amendments the redress sought includes a judgment against the city for compensation attorneys fees c applied first will address the ticking time the district court found that pursuant to williamson the appellant's claim for taking isn't right because they haven't been denied just compensation through an inverse condemnation action the court found because the violation of the date in its claws had not been asserted through that action the appellant's had not been denied just compensation therefore there was no violation of the fifth amendment plaintiff's property has been damaged and therefore the proper action i condemnation actions is misplaced that they have cited to case law that was prior to our revision of the louisiana constitution in one nine hundred seventy four so the position that williamson should be disregarded because there distinct and separate claims is of no moment are actual in verse but in one nine hundred seventy four the louisiana constitution was expanded and it was in order to provide all damages possible for an inverse condemnation action the louisiana constitution article one section four is the authority for an inverse condemnation action b one states that the property shall not be taken or damaged by the state or its political divisions except for public purposes with just compensation pay furthermore section b five states that in every expropriation or action to take property pursuant to the provisions of the accession section a party has the right to trial by jury whether the compensation is just the owner shall be constant constant stated to the full extent of his loss except as otherwise provided in this constitution the full extent of the law shall include but not be limited to the appraised value of property at all cost and convenience and any other damages incurred because of the expropriation there is a multitude of cases louisiana case law that supports this specific village that supports the fact that there is that all damages that there is no separation between these due process claims because there's an injunction saw as your question earlier at judge king that why couldn't the city why couldn't inverse condemnation action invalidate the lien it could process of the i d c the i d c ordinance does not require notice it goes through a full process and evaluation because it's in imminent danger of collapse none of that information's been put in but it was a it was destroyed by fire it's been blighted since two thousand and five and katrina happened and they purchased in two thousand and fifteen so if once those that information gets into a record on an inverse condemnation action it will prove that really there they correlate their ancillary  have a case on point the louisiana supreme court decision of state through department of transportation versus chambers in one nine hundred ninety two case which is subsequent to the one nine hundred seventy four expansion in the constitution codified it five nine five five ninety eight states there can be little doubt that the aim of article one section four of our state constitution and requiring that the owner shall become been stated for property taken or damage to the full extent of the loss was to assure that the state and its subdivisions compensate owners for any taking or damaging of their rights with respect to the things as well as for any taking or damaging of objects of theirs rights the history of section four reveals a desire to increase the level and scope of compensation beyond that provided by preexisting state law the change from the one nine hundred twenty one constitution language which was just an adequate compensation to the new phrase compensated to the full extent of his loss was deliberate and prompted by a belief that the on the part of the sponsors inadequate awards had been provided under the prior law the court went on to state that the purpose of the additional language in article one section four was to compensate an owner for any loss sustained by reason of the taking and not merely restricted under the former constitution to the market value of the property taken and the reduction in the market value of the remainder in the case of masi motors versus the sewage and water board of new orleans hailing from the fourth circuit value of the property and severance damages to the remainder but he become sated to the full extent of his loss and place in as good a position as he enjoyed prior to the taking there's also case law thousand and sixteen awarded attorneys fees for an inverse condemnation action because the final amount awarded was greater to what was offered for the taking so attorney's fees were awarded so there is a vast array of  remedies that can be sought under the inverse combination action actually even the louisiana fourth circuit case of adding all versus state department of natural resources eight fifty eight as soon to be six ninety seven stated that under the takings provision of the louisiana constitution and owner of property by the state or state entity has rights to compensation that go beyond the rights of the us constitution the city does pay and the case of stanford versus town a ball explains the which is a third circuit case from two thousand and explains that what happens within the state of louisiana the way our constitution is drafted is that the city doesn't have to immediately pay a state court judgment it has discretion as to how funds are allocated and this is based on bankruptcy issues so the does it's a design of the separation of powers under the louisiana constitution that the judiciary does have the power and has a binding judgment against the city or the did legislature has the authority to allocate funds as they see fit therefore an ordinance is passed for that but the city does pay on our judgments and we've actually been yes and so that's one of our positions is that this inverse condemnation action would flush out these factual issues that need to be determined which are the due process issue and the takings issues that are the ancillary t issue it seems to me that you're familiar with the polls the new i'm sorry could you repeat that the supreme court cases hold all i have read it before but rosedale case it's very similar in factual matters the do procedural due process claim that is being asserted here is procedure how it was applied to them in an inverse taking claim the state court can look at not only whether there was a taping and not just compensation and that whether or not there was adequate due process provided there's also nothing to dissuade the core from reviewing the other constitutional could resolve these issues could move them however once we find out if there is just compensation has been denied then the additional factual issues will have been developed to make the procedural due process it also requires additional facts the lower court had it held that it was and right because of additional factual development that needed to take place the the seizure claim and the due process claim are bo were both denied as an right because under john court that additional factual development was required and they cited to the severance case to look to the the factors to determine whether or not the rightness of a seizure claim those being whether the issues are purely legal whether the issues are based on an agency final action whether the controversy has a direct direct and immediate impact on the plaintiff and whether the litigation will expedite rather than delay or impede the lower court found that the opponents claims are not completely legal but they depend on factual resolution that will be flushed out during and a taking an inverse condemnation action that it's not  please the court and like to correct several assertions here made by opposing counsel number one a takings queen whether you call inverse condemnation or not does not address procedural problems it doesn't address what is required for pre deprivation notice just compensation is not relevant to the determination of free deprivation due process that's one reason why you don't need a just compensation claim to  definition notice claim because just compensation is a post deprivation remedy that doesn't play into the determination of what is pretty deprivation process secondly you'll notice that when counsel disputed is supposedly disputed the ability of the state courts to enforce damages awarded the silly students willingness to pay out those awards that it says it's paid several damages awards lately after decades and millions of dollars of not paying out this is hardly an adequate procedure to compensate plaintiffs who suffered takings and finally we don't know why this property to was demolished as council admits there's not a big record in this case there's not of a developed record but we know it was demolished we know it's gone we know they have a bill for eleven thousand dollars we know it's accrued if we know it's a lien on their property this is there is a concrete injury in this case the issues are fifty reviewed nothing more needs to be happy happen to happen to me as i mentioned just compensation doesn't go into whether the deprivation was noticed just compensation doesn't go into whether it's reasonable all these claims are fit for review and even if the core you're on even at the port thought that that takings claim was on thinner ice than the others claims it wouldn't be  separate these claims at this point the due process and sue your claims certainly need to go forward under the facts of this case and the takings claim should go along with them to save the parties and of course a waste of resources and a waste of time exactly honestly your honor what they were going to do with the property they never a chance to do anything with it before it was torn down but they wanted to rehabilitate it and sell it yes which they asked  for seventeen years the city let it be neglected the city willingly sold it to the garrets so that they can rehabilitated and make something of it the city gain from this and then they turn around and demolish it if it was in imminent danger of collapse which it was not why would it take so long from the proceedings that was that resulted in demolition months it took months between the time the city ordered demolition and the time it actually happened that fact in itself if you look at the kennison case for instance demonstrates that there is at the very least a serious factual issue here about the status of the property but it is our position that it wasn't intended in that danger collapse and we have the evidence to prove that there is no case law that you could stop a lien through an inverse condemnation that's it that's an equitable remedy and that's what we're seeking here there is also no case law as of louisiana that you can remedy a notice violation through a just compensation proceeding or that you can remedy a fourth amendment violation through just compensation proceeding so her the allegation that we could that we could be made whole through an inverse condemnation claim is not correct you cannot be made whole for traditional due process fourth amendment says your claims like that here thank you