claims for most of the work and that there were two issues of first impression this is hardly the type of case that is extraordinarily unusual circumstances that would justify a departure from the not right the narrow exception that drives the district court to make an award is i believe the case law has demonstrated is found in unusual fabric of the claim for the civil rights so and like for example the new case that came out all but one published peters that was cited by the appellate had a very bizarre has no presidential value fees total fees should be allocated those to not kill addressing that that question our supreme court has said that this analysis should be made at the beginning of litigation and not at the end at the beginning of litigation to address the court's question about constitutionality there wasn't a factor from this ninth circuit a constitutional  flaw i don't think we have any clear ninth circuit law we have but where is the abuse of discretion i believe that the the quantification of the fees was done without evidence into the record i believe the abuse of discretion came from here our legal bills granted most of the work as a good knowledge by the court was was directed at the non frivolous non vexatious claims no one presented to the court your honor here's exactly what we did on this issue and this issue and that justifies what the appellate is did was dump it in the courts laugh and say see if you can figure it out and we believe that that absence  are intermingled the fact that these two areas of the airport noise you passed me at the airport employees you prove an act and have issues is there an implied right of standing there is a direct connection between section  because it is so intertwined and because the court recognizes that these are definitely separate claims this would put the ninth circuit in a position of announcing to circuit world that make sure if you have valid claims you don't intermingle them with claims that will be decided down the road to be non marital us so you're asking us to a got l and in the world that would say intertwine claims not reduce common dreams not quite that simply not quite that simply but when you when you have to stand alone claims where you have a connection with process denial therefore we're going to punish you and i don't think that furthers congress's intent to by having a vigorous defense of the constitutional rights and not to chill them so i think they're extra time for  recognized that you could have a case that starts out of hearing have merit and then is learned through discovery or maybe a change in law a lack of merit the court has the discretion to get into the middle of that claim and say well fees up to the point believe that the second circuit the second circuit decision by the way doesn't say what that that there is this this division rule that really in fact that case was really more of a late discovered issue that made it clear that it wasn't u possible and i think that really gets to the point is the district horn should have to decide to make those kind of decisions based on the facts in the law case presented to the judge the plaintiff poses would take away that discretion in one and incorporated in that house claim for nine hundred eighty three relief and so on down the line instead of the way which he did which was a sort of unified one nine hundred eighty three counts in a core part of our references all the other column names we wouldn't be having this discussion because each one of those looked at the briefing i've been followed the court has been following the case and has a sense of an understanding of how the parties allocated their time and resources on the case and determined that twenty percent of the effort was commensurate with what he had seen had been put one weight limit one runway so how do we break that all out you're saying well when you start breaking them out because they're clustered under one nine hundred eighty three they still are various claims but they really were were done presented on a analogous fact pattern where the legal issues don't break out so distinctly as they did here and in that case you might want to look at the inner calling nature of the claims and so forth and be unable to divide them out detail daily record i'm sorry go ahead finish up that would allow him to make that decision and he could make a decision of well i think based on those two things you could fairly make a decision as to the effort place discretion to look at the nature of the claims that were raised in the need of a particular type of expertise in the case and make a decision as to whether that was a reasonable rate for that kind of expertise he made no explanation about how he came to his conclusion as to what w continually into the courts lap here are bills we generated when time slips each one is a paragraph set out figured out rather than have the attorneys who are making this claim justify what they should be paid the volume of caseload that assaults the circuit will probably continue but it need not be as burdensome if the lawyers would write down a file out what their their claim i would make one final note on the f words that if it was so simple to discern that these constitutional rights were meritless then why all the effort while the research while the work on the answer is it wasn't that in fact it wasn't just about two areas of first impression in fact there was precedent from the ninth circuit about constitutional bans involving precisely access and i would first impression not where you have federal statutes or tech claim there are one off cases there are cases that are distinguishable in multiple defendant cases i don't believe that this is the one you would invite  far more controversy and confusion i believe based on the record then it would clarity in these types of cases where both the ninth circuit in the supreme court have made an effort to to make