discretion in failing to analyze the consequences of dismissal on appellants ability to meet statue of limitations when filing her claims or alternatively in failing to sever any missed drawing claims rather than dismissing them that is what i'm here to discuss and to answer that question yes it appears that the district court did abused its discretion there is a line of cases in just about every circuit in the nation except for the ninth circuit where this issue has never come up where it's a pure error of law for a district court to dismiss a case or dismiss it dismissed join defendant without considering the statue limitations for no other reason than statue limitations as told when the case filing fee you would have to pay the filing fee if there was a mistrial and or you would have had to pay the filing fee in each case if there was yes if we avoid have to refile it but the bigger problem is no not refund the original filing you would have had to pay the phone at three i'm sorry i don't understand the court's question if there was a missed joint or yes there should have been three separate search there should because in the ninth circuit we're not required to play by play dates of incidents with the statue of limitation with the give me because in the ninth circuit we're not allowed we're not required to plea dates of incidents in the complaint that we go the district judge who dismisses miss joined parties after the complaint is filed has no way of knowing whether or not the statue imitation is going to be expired so in these other circuits the courts have said  part of this record and i don't know either way seven minutes i'd like to my man is there any room for the court to rule to through should have been the escapes my name those where prisoner filed a case the court dismissed it from this joint or the defendant's statue limitations had expired and the court he took it up on appeal they did so for two reasons one defendant foothill ranch is unnecessary party to this action and to rush's rights to relief against foothill ranch are jointly alleged against pet smart and turning out my first argument the a b a speaks in terms of public accommodations the department of justice defines a public accommodation as a facility operated by a private entity whose operation affects commerce and falls within several enumerated categories one of which is retail facility in turn is also defined by the d o j as any portions of buildings structures sites complexes and it continues to say including the site where the building property structure or equipment is located here sandy rush sued foothill ranch the land owner for violations which appeared on one site the town center for the ranch also leased out the property to at least three individuals or entities babies r us pet smart and sports chalet were property of their lives they were released it appears that they did not least the parking lot and is important no there are no parking lot barriers alleged in this case this case really raises the issue of mall sites in and facilities and we start with the premise that foot within one public accommodation whether those barriers are encountered are not here that one public accommodation is the land the site the whole ranch owns because it is rented out certain sections to had some additional barriers outside of the restroom they all reach similar questions of law because there are similar sections of the a dag however this district court found this joinder without reaching the second prong of the rule twenty  one visit by sandy rush however if the court need not find really a visit to the store or to the mall it would be to the one syllabi which is the sport still a land which has several subsections or found that the landowner was not a necessary party to the first tenant which happened to be babies r us which was dismissed earlier because suddenly with them that in itself standing and this court actually confirmed or ran in bonk and chapman the pier one when it found that a disabled person has standing to challenge eighty a barriers that relate to their disability so long were there were noticed they were noticed and all of us and everyone had a chance to appear and say something so th fifteen day jury trial with judge of in the first week of march i'm spending a lot of time it at seventh and mission in pasadena so good to see you mr smith