and i have four defendants in this case we have similar arguments in terms of the pallies here will try and present them in a manner that's not redundant fiercely different to the court's questioning we are here to ask that this court reversed the order of the district court and find that the police did not department did not receive due notice under brandon v holt and that would be in line with the decision in banks for the sleigh in the reasoning in banks v sleigh which is  missouri court of appeals decision and i would like to take you through the litigation conduct the course of perceiving that drives this conclusion the petition in this case was filed on august twenty third two thousand and five it was officer cousins were served or named in their official and individual capacities the case went on and on nov fifteenth two thousand and seven the board filed for summary judgment at that time and in prior to that and at no time had anyone filed a pleading on behalf of officer williams the plaintiffs in the case obtained a couple of extensions to respond to that motion for summary judgment and ultimately dismiss the board members on june sixteenth two thousand and eight so as of june sixteenth two thousand and eight a little less than three years after this case had commenced no one had answered for officer williams ye default measure been taken ok after they dismissed the board defendants they did not do anything to preserve their argument to preserve their ability to argue against a summary judgment motion based on the case that it's in their theory is that you know officer williams is the board in his official capacity therefore he still in the case that summary judgment motion should have been argued that it was not it was in any improper collateral of traffic analysis of attempting to collect the default judgment from the the board cards if that was that was the bas look raise you to cut it to take effect it has to be a final judgment on the merits and the court clearly made but there was no there was no deal from it but it would not be that that schools and with regret let me continue with regard to course of conduct because i believe that's the driving issue in this case after the board members were dismissed ok there was a two month window from june of two thousand a august of two thousand and eight when they filed a new petition and where they could've pursued a default judgment against officer williams in his official capacity they did not do that again sending a signal but they were not pursuing a claim against the board after the board members had been dismissed then we come to the filing of the second amended petition and it names simply officer williams in his official and individual capacities we get to the point then where it's followed up by an e mail they take a default and they send it to counsel for the board members and it is in the record it's important and we will i will read it to you against the board your client is concluded we are not proceeding any further were the board members they were so at that that it is a pretty good indication that this is a serious matter and that liability  saw it is not that they're all serious matters but to the extent that you can ignore this course of conduct just by the fact of service no it's not and i think that brandon supports that brandon talks about looking at the course of the proceedings and not you're just not bound by the pleading you receive and brandon they did not name the individual in his official capacity yet they looked at the course of proceeding summary judgment and trial opening statements and determined that it was an official capacity claim similarly that with kentucky v graham you will see that the court there was not bound by the pleading it found that in fact it was an individual capacity claim even though  suggesting it was a deliberate fake or something like that but it just takes not understanding that there were some intentional misleading here but rather putting myself in the position of the person default judgments attributable to the police defendants and or the city were asking the court to also affirm that district courts denial of those judgment interests if that is the ruling of this court there's no dispute that the two thousand and five amendment to the missouri case for that proposition there is no such explicit award of excess of post judgment interest in the judgment in this in the default judgment in this case on appeal the banks the banks argue that the pre two thousand and five version should apply  which did not require explicitly that it be listed in the judgment the question then before the court i think is whether the application of the two thousand five amendment to the judge in this case violates the missouri constitution's ban on richard speck the laws we ask the court to find it's not the case s that strongly support that position are good hope missionary baptist church and white v to wreak both of those cases address analogous factual scenarios to the one that we have here specifically good hope  held that the change in the law to prejudgment interest would have created would have violated the missouri constitution because it would have been impossible to for the plaintiffs in that case to go back in other words it would have affected their right to recover pre judgment interest and then that same court in addressing the issue of postage in interest found that use the two thousand and five version in analyzing a claim for postage and interest so of course as you changes in the law and that's that pretty analogous to what we have here the change in the last simply required a new procedure for obtaining post judgment interest it didn't affect one's right to obtain post judgment interest but rather simply require that you include it explicitly in the judgment that didn't happen first of all the the decision of the state court of appeals was based on the failure one my failure to follow the procedural devices required for filing  in the state courts in the state in the court of missouri in missouri courts it's required that you file a provisional writ which is basically a request for permission to file a writ before you file a writ and the provisional rip can be ruled upon without a hearing and it is ruled upon it is not appealable does not get to the merits the court of appeals found that my failure to file the court can properly reach the substantive issues because the procedural requirements of the rule i think it's eighty four o two or ninety ninety four to get number the room number but the work those procedural requirements were not met and therefore cause was dismissed without prejudice leaving me the opportunity to refile another case which is why the who i leave in banks won in the federal court why the record feldman decision was reverse because i had the opportunity to file an a second case in the federal court it was not barred by the action in the state court and therefore there was no no precedent to value the circuit court in the state of missouri had both subject matter and personal jurisdiction over the parties and the objections to the objections that defendants now bring from reviewing the final state court judgment once again and voiding it which is what the what the opponents are asking appellants are asking this is federal court to a final state court judgment of which they were the so the decision is final the default judgment is final there are no legitimate objections to that default judgment the only admit they were served they admit that the person served had authority to receive the the service in fact they admit that they were at the default hearing they had plenty of notice that they were  they were a notice of the notice or do you explain to me why a reasonable person might not take this invitation as it were the hearing as a kind of what i might a reasonable person not be forgiven for thinking this is what it means because a reasonable person standard because it took revealing with this a reasonable attorney standard a reasonable tourney would respond to being served they were served again i never served twice with this petition against the officer in his official capacity they failed to respond both times the e mail itself doesn't say don't show up it's mean that's not reasonable for me and i do it and try to be courteous to post and counsel and knowledge courtesies that are extended to me and that's all that that was at didn't say don't show up in fact that said you should show up please show up you're invited to show up ordered by the court to give them notice to show up and i attach the the notice of the default here of the default hearing to that email if you don't have any further questions what is judgement i'd like to address two issues that are on the cross appeal the the interest issue that was raised by the city in this case and they have it wrong just as judge weber had it wrong the rights to post judgment interest are defined by the statute and post judgment interest rights are substantive rights that attach upon the a cruel of the action not at the time of the judgment that the judgment is centered at the time that the action accrued which is two thousand and the statutory post judgment interest rights did not provide any any requirement that the interest rate be set forth in the judgment it only fact it stated all judgments a receive post judgment interest at the rate of nine percent for every case without any further requirement tort reform rather than just take effect a step in this case was filed on august twenty third of two thousand and five the the so called port reform the changes in the tort approach judgment interest that you did not take effect until august twenty eight attorney fees issue here judge webber abused his discretion in both reducing the rate the hourly rate in finding a lodestar and in arbitrarily reducing the number of hours said among other things that there were two prior judgments in the eastern district of missouri one of them including judge webber who awarded who assessed my hourly rate at four hundred fifty dollars which is six thirty two fed fed app three o six in both cases there's a reversal of the of the decision on the attorney fees application when the when the court rejected a so called club or dance theory the theory was that the court could ignore the the ignore the lodestar analysis and make an independent decision as to the value of the case a subjective independent decision as to the value of the case the court said the lodestar controls and that the courts do not have authority to make a this decision as to the value of the case and that is just an extension of the produced case from the supreme court which said that the courts don't have authority to make a decision based upon a case by case evaluation of the suit societal usefulness of the case it's the lodestar is a subjective determination as to whether or not the attorney feed rate is is within the applicable  marketplace i don't think there's any question that the rate of four hundred fifty dollars an hour is within the applicable marketplace for for litigation in this of a geographical area and that's confirmed somehow to to convince the court that i should be awarded the highest rate of litigators in this area that that inherently means that i'm within if i'm the  cut just a lot of lopped off twenty percent of all the research and the writing on winners with no basis in fact except to compare it to another case that he'd heard of another case of your time has expired thank you i well my time is brief your honor and i will get in under here's the most him telling thing and term when asked about is there a reasonable explanation for that e mail you should look at his brief and what is what jumps out at you as there was no explanation about any of the conduct in his brief they went right to record feldman which doesn't apply because we're not on match argument he went right to full faith and credit which doesn't apply because we're not on that judgment there is no reasonable basis to think he was pursuing a claim against us based on that email and all the other course of proceedings thank you