good morning good morning talk master for the opponents and i don't want to rehash obviously all the arguments that we've set forth in our briefs probably like to focus the very happy if you could take it like the focus on a few of what i consider some of the more important points this and it's also supported by the harris case which the court relied arm the district court indicated that there was a dispute of fact in terms of what had occurred prior to the police officer showing up at the do we have jurisdiction yes you do your own the reason is because in terms of qualified immunity the city's argument the police officers contention here is that regardless of the veracity of any of the arguments  any of the parties as to what happened prior to the police officer showing up qualified immunity is proper here because we have to look at the circumstances that the officers were faced with these are circumstances that they didn't create themselves my understanding of supreme court precedent is that if the district courts there was in response to a motion for summary judgment by those claiming qualified immunity essentially i can't  believe that's correct your honor but the district court indicated that there was a focus on the fact that the plaintiffs have claimed that there was a dispute as to whether or not mr bruno the repossess or had gained entry to the vehicle prior to the police arriv our argument here is that regardless of whether or not that is true whether or not it is false the police officers the circumstances they were faced with the one thing that's undisputed here is what happened after the officers arrived at the s are not protected by qualified immunity now there is no clearly established law the law that this record relied on was the harris case and the commercial code ninety six and i believe it was that case is clearly distinguish measures officers standing by going with the reapers us or actually affecting the reef his actions standing by making sure that there's no breach of the peace the officers redwood city arrives and the only reason they were there they were not there because  repossession they were there responding to a call of a disturbance a physical disturbance they had no their duty and obligation was to investigate that they had no other there was no way that they could leave the scene they had to resolve their they would have they were kind of between a rock and a hard place here if they were to tell no rock and they know our glees if the allegations are true all they had to do was tell to the repossess or look at well we've done this before we've been through this before the law is launched there's this kind of dispute you can't take that car until you have a court order so go to court give her know this if you get an order who will come out with you and like let you take the car we're not going to let you take the that's what needs to be clarified here what happened here is we have an individual who is claiming that he was assaulted and wants to make a citizen's arrest against the plaintiffs ok that being said the police officers have no there they're only duty there is to take them in honor and the reason why is because you have officers arriving at the scene looking at all the circumstances talking with the different people making judgments qualified immunity allows for mistaken judgments if they're reasonable this is a reasonable judgment that was made by the officers to think about the situation at hand to arrest everybody is that what we want police officers to do show up just arrest everybody bring them down to jail that's not what we want to do we want them to be able to restore the peace in a reasonable fashion typical one forty two we're doing with the citizen's arrest which is penal code section eight thirty seven ok you know call one forty two indicates and mandates the police officers take into custody anyone that they were safe pursuant to citizen's arrest if they established law has to be that the officers have to know at the time they're doing it the third violating the law right now what what i would know and i think the questions that went to once mr masters go to whether or not there are still disputes a fact as to what the officer said to miss myers that would not have a bearing on the officers which is the patient in the whole and the whole repossession apparently what these officers believed and i think that they simply cannot defeat the fact that there is a material factual dispute as to whether or not they were needing something in some reasonable fashion or they were telling someone you