defendant's second by another the the lawyer says she gave notice i mean what authority even allows to hold that a defendant who had not been served and was not named in the complaint had proper notice that a plaintiff intended to sue him telephone calling up somebody your honor the purpose of the notice this court has held is to prevent prejudice to the defendants and prejudice is sufficient notice if i simply call you on the telephone and say hi actually i'm suing you because i understand you did what s case that being the case if he gets five minutes in less we're asking you questions i'm going to cut you off when you get there so don't worry sitting at the table that she's using up your time ok if we ask her more questions i'll still give you five minutes ok hits all other circuits while there is some precedent as relates to the application of state relations back in the ninth circuit specifically referring to the barricades that there is no clear indication from the courts at least the district cour sponsor motion by the district court neither of which occurred in this case and for that reason in addition to the fact that misspell or did not demonstrate any mistake in the name of the parties there should be no relation back in th did examined the mistake issue and found that because there was no mistake there was no need to even get into the hundred twenty period of notice and examination those issues if we were to consistent with the other circuits if we were to hold that screening in that period that that they would that they would be entitled to the ninety two days how would you what would be your if if we were to be consistent with the other circuit somewhat be you know how one component there has to be a notice of the actual mistake of identity under the federal rules and there is in fact no mistake about that because of the crusty case the plaintiff had to do without complete knowledge not only of the actual name of the parties but how they were involved in the events at issue on april eighteenth two thousand and seven that's absolutely not the case there are multiple admissions by mr butler that she fact knew not only of the existence of the housing authority of mr gore but exactly what roles and i believe it was mentioned i believe it was towards the second section of our briefing and gave a supplementary supplemental or briefing that we prepared and i also like to state that under equitable tolling it was never in front of the district court and facts relating to either the housing authority or mr de rica have evacuated raise any possibility that equitable tolling would apply specifically there was no first action alleged by mr butler and were  something in the record that would demonstrate to the court that there was a first action that would put either mr de rico or cola or the housing authority on notice and for that reason under state relations back principles better relations are principles and  toll the second a mini complaint in the same action based on an erroneous filing of the original complaint and the district court correctly pointed out that there is no precedent under california law for that the only well mr bailey on the relation back argument doesn't section four seventy three day one of the california civil court preclude relation back to name a new defendant and the next section four seventy four just allows for a misnomer neither one of which would be a plausible here so there is no california theory that would allow or to name a new defendant in an amended complaint unless  whatsoever additionally the screening argument that butler mates about their being ninety days of screening is not supported by the record but would claims that she she was screaming prevented from serving any of the defendants during the time that the by the district court was allegedly screaming these complaints however the record shows that butler did in fact attempt to serve in the first or second amended complaint on the housing i mean arguably if something if it so legal issue i had to know for review and she was a you know she was pro se as it is it before  i've gone over your time and if my either my colleagues have additional questions they don't appear to thank you for your argument this matter i also i when we have a problem in our council i would i like to think about our council from the stamp time when we have a difficult legal issues it's greatly obvious distance to the court to have a good briefing and good argument and certainly i i see the dean of pepperdine sitting out in the audience as well so we thank we thank parties for providing argument to the court and as a as a law student you should be proud of your argument before the court and we hope that all of you will come back on another occasion thank you