control the outcome of both cases that's what judge said rick said when he originally stayed the proceedings in this case and that was his assumption but as we look and we see what happened in the state court proceedings when the case finally got to the alaska supreme court they did not really decide anything about the conduct of the three individuals who are being sued in this case they decided on a purely state contractual basis so therefore the assumption jetset which had when he made his stay or actually never came to fruition because there was no decision in the state court proceedings about the legality or illegality of the conduct of the three of the final decision correct yes and whether we could have asserted them involved whether we could have gotten the remedies that were seeking in this case so in alaska recognizes that as well as the united states supreme court it's yours separate court proceeding in the court said well you can't pursue your claim against the state because the only way to sue the state in alaska in a contractual matter is to file its follow through this administrative process in the court is court to do that and i think you should just simplify where you know we're an appellate court so we'd like to review what the district court does yes here the district did not look at issue preclusion it did not but i think it's an it's an obvious legal issue that's presented on the face of the evidence it doesn't require was entirely clear to me what clint what do you what one of of all the claims that are that are pending which do you contend are still viable i believe are not barred by  violations correct yes or didn't didn't work what do we do with the superior courts finding does that just go away yes it does your honor at this point in time because under alaska no claim because you didn't file it appropriately correct they said that as far as the can the contractor started the count as far as maybe that relates to damages is what i mean that's what that's what i'm wondering about it seems to me there may be real issue problems with respect to any claim that you were damaged by the conduct of people turning down a claim which was procedurally inappropriate so i'm not sure you want us to decide whether sure but if you do you might not win it well and then has to prove it via evidence so you know it's not real but by evidence what you do is you're if you're preclusion is done under face of proceedings it's not no one doesn't put a witness i understand in proving one looks at how a prior it has general jurisdiction in certain cases but it doesn't have to restriction in administrative appeal this was not a case filed in the superior court as a civil action for say it follow that state administrators process under in for that reason it doesn't really satisfy did look at the core issues that you're complaining about it looked at some of that some of the procedure issues but he didn't look at the kind in the animus and the motivation of  arise under the federal law will look at the state of mind of the actors and we were not allowed to go into that and we weren't allowed to pursue it damages claim against the individuals in the administrative process that's a separate remedy that's an extra contractual remedy the statutory remedies whether they're under the federal statutes or under the state law are extra contractual remedies that were in that but let me get back to the end let me go back may go back assess what i want you know you can explain this to me your claim against these various state actors is that they somehow deprived you of due process and that animus in the proceeding in which you were seeking to recover contractual damages correct yes in the in that proceed to bend out another window that you couldn't recovered contractual damages anyway in that proceeding with the ask a supreme court has told us that how is it that you have any damage at all consequential in the end your complaint is about the way proceeding was was held in the people who held the proceeding are operated we now know that no matter how that proceeding was operated and helped you lose because the alaska supreme court has told us that your recognizes you have an independent cause of action against entities in the contracting process even if you don't have a valid claim against the state that's would be the ultimate decision in that case was not a valid claim against state that absent in this case because the issue before the administrative agency was ability or cover on the contract and the claim per compensation the trial the no vote was held on a separate issue of allegations of official misconduct in the administrative decision making process so what do you do then with us because supreme court saying we don't need to worry about all that stuff because their end result in this case is dictated by procedure well that's a that's a question for the the  issue is when he required to bring these claims in his administrative appeal he was required to once he sought and was granted a trial the know of all allegations of admission official misconduct he was required to bring all the claims that could have  report also recognize that there wasn't you know to call it a child or no vote was a little bit of a misnomer in this case because there wasn't a previous litigation or airing of the due process issues but what the rule allows you to do that actually allows you to procedure in the superior court apply and the only limitation is that to bring additional summons or amend your pleadings you have to get leave of court so at that point having sought successfully received a trial the  later committed wrongdoing there was a hearing multi day hearing with cross examination and direct examination on factual findings that's a trial the only significant limitation was the deliberative process privilege and that's the deliberative process was corrupted you saying that they they couldn't bring that in a separate procedure they could if they brought it if they bring in as a separate proceeding say the ones section one hundred eighty three claims same conduct that they're alleging to deliberative process test applies now there's a balancing test to deliberative process one you know the first element is a deliberative there's a pre decision all and then the court has to say well there's the interest in disclosure outweigh the interest in the court and all the litigants time to actually litigate allegations of misconduct you get a decision and then you don't like the outcome and you bring a separate case in federal court and you want to litigate the same thing all over again same witnesses waste judicial resources didn't waste issue cut the other way to what if they were the one didn't need a stranger proceeding and got the contract then when their claims of conspiracy in ill treatment certainly have been administrative proceeding first and find out how it comes out before you could sue people well but that claim that that administrative issue would still exist you know they just have to bring all the claims at once and the alaska supreme court could decide on whatever issues were alive at that point but the fact is they never brought those claims even though they could have and you know that that means that under lascaux law they had a full and fair opportunity to litigate these claims and they chose not to break the due process because it doesn't matter because it bars all claims that could have been brought it just in this procedure and you know it's like my question to you can they be brought in the administrative procedure or must there be a separate is them you're saying basically you can go to the ministry if you is in order to exhaust that potential remedy and then if you don't win supreme court ruled that whatever allegations of misconduct there were they didn't affect their ability to recover and that determination is preclude civs in this litigation so completely nexts their civil rico claims and their common law tort claims because all those claims require proof of damages and it also inhibits their ability to recover anything on the civil rights claims nominal damages they potentially could recover nominal damages  and i read it it's a permissive rule right it says you may with the court's permission and additional parties and claims much like sort of the federal rules of procedure that says if you have of you have claims arising out of the same of facts against different parties you might join them but you don't have to there's no there's no federal rule that requires that you sue everybody that you claim cause something in the same lawsuit you can make separate lawsuits against them so i think it is true that they could have brought a separate lawsuit against these individuals under alaska law if not unilateral six o nine they could have done that and then and since they could have doesn't that doesn't that mean that we don't have that it's not mandatory and that you know the trial court or the superior courts granting leave to file or not to add additional claims and parties would be reviewed for abuse of discretion but if you don't try you know if if any if you tried and the superior court like no you can add additional parties or claims then he didn't have the opportunity to fully litigate those claims in part of the superior court but if you don't try but you can't you know you didn't try not really the opportunity ones deals with the parties that are in front of you and that's why we ask if you have any case law that says the opportunity doctrine means that you could have tried to add additional parties but you didn't there's no point let me ask you what i just had one last question for you and then one night when i was working preparing for this case i came across the last of the statute thirty six point thirty point six two seven which deals with an appeal from a decision of kerman officer of a claim involving a construction contract and it says well you know you if it's less than two hundred fifty thousand dollars you go to arbitration it's more you can still go to arbitration or you get a hearing under thirty six point thirty point six three zero which we had here and then it's as in this section a claim includes all issues causes of actions and controversies arising from a construction contract for which a contractor or the contracting agency s asserts compensation is due when it talks about causes of action what is it what does it stand you referring to i believe this referring to all theories of recovery on the contract or on the on the contract on the contract but that the issue here is that their allegations of due process didn't materialize until after that point because you know they're saying may please the court the fact that the claims in this case were permitted that at most and the claims are actually discovered during the course of the partial trials in over when evidence came forth and at that point in time mr olson in absolute environmental services exercise their right to pursue their claims in federal court they went to federal court with those claims there was no right to a jury trial is all very it's  questionable and speculative at best right now what could have even happened in an administrative fee of a child's federal courts and underneath that should have been honored especially once they opposed staying the proceedings they wanted to proceed with their federal claims certain issues two to conduct discovery in depositions and in that discovery evidence came forth that that caused these federal planes to get to materialize and say oh we have federal claims so we then pursue those in federal court we have a right to a jury trial and a full and fair proceeding not a limited proceeding and ultimately this is a contract proceeding in this day court is not intended to be mixed in with other issues at the same time and in fact if you look at the blue the england stipulation the new rules regime we didn't raise it was a superior corporate england reservation is made by virtue of our actions in the federal court and as i understand this course j it doesn't have to be an expressway as evasion it's almost like you have to waive the england reservation by acting in such a way so as to fully involuntarily litigate those federal claims in say court and we clearly did not