stigma hardship of a criminal conviction is a basic is a principle basic to our society and this principle is certainly on display and equally applicable to this case where you have a business deprived of a valuable building permit which again that it had obtained from the city a profitable but what is important for this appeal is that the district court impermissibly considered extensive evidencing at the motion to dismiss the district court at the hearing during the oral argument recognized that there was a dispute between the parties as to the bill to requirement and that you cannot find a joint appendix one twenty to find that in the oral argument transcript so are you saying that that requirement appears nowhere in that requirement appears nowhere in the pleading and it appears nowhere in the suspension order which was a tac her my question are you saying that it doesn't appear anywhere in the code it's part of the rockville zoning code to why wouldn't i wouldn't be appropriate for the court think it is from those because it is a dispute i mean the the a click ability of the bill eighteen the stop work order specifically said that a notice a violation outlining the specifics of the inconsistency is will be issued priority one automotive shortly no such document was if there's a dispute over the manner of construction it is our contention that the that that that appellate code that the code to follow the ministry of appeal is does not fit the circumstances here in this case severe nineteen a reaction is they didn't receive procedure and process and if there is a process available in the state court and what is that well there there was no process available in the state court  appeals they could have arrived to a circuit court in that mechanical function but a a a lawsuit against the city of rockville directly into the circuit court of maryland is is not a requirement to first bring a procedural due process quite well to have a procedural in process claim you would agree that you have to have it right that has been violent right correct so what is that right well first you had it whatever it was that you had your in your own or didn't sign onto it begin with right and that's why they had to stop it well well so it's hard for me to see where that violation as well but let's go back to the beginning i thought that was pretty much the beginning of the big b m w of rockville least in adjoining property from an owner robin tack in october of two t can read it and see if the documents are in the record we rely on the documents in the record and so if you have another view maybe that maybe that's true but the documents don't say that this i'm sorry the site plan submitted all of the to the city of rockville all the blueprints all of the all of the call for destroying the building it but it's the characterization of the destroying the building which we would disagree with that is that that's one of conclusion is precisely what one would not want to render and it won't be six analysis we have we have pled think that's very difficult to say that you either have the authority to destroy the building or you don't have the authority you only have that is the authority to remodel the building now i don't think those things would then not lend themselves to the twelve the six motion you either have or you know look at the building was taken down to its lab everyone can agree on certain question is whether you had already do that and we did ok i'm looking at page thirty for the permit application and it appears that the box that is checked years ago i might have been able to read this better but talk about renovation there is a box for demolition right the hand written information there and there was additional information provided here  building data and you'll see that on height of the building which change from nineteen and a half the to twenty six feet tall and it's not at all inconsistent with stealing a remodel rather than a demolition well this is the actually how do you raise a building with you know come to downtown buffalo how do you raise a building without taking the structural foundations dow it is a matter right now of dispute that it's a it and it does not appear in the end just spewed the records that exist that isn't a dispute that you can have the dispute but the there's no reason a court should honor what you are orally saying what is written here is to the contrary well let let let me try to simplify the the that is what i consider  w submitted an application for remodel the city of rockville ultimately in december of two thousand and thirteen several months six months after its suspension said that this that the b m w of rockville was not remodelling but was instead conducting a rebuild or knew of a new building and it and what it did is it cited that the slab and its basis for doing that was citing that the slab was significant the slab of the building was significantly disturbed and that was the city of rockville position in december of two thousand and thirteen it wasn't expressed in july two thousand and thirteen when the issue suspension stop work order but they finally indicated that the that there was significant parts of the slab that were disturbed when during this remodel and therefore it was their position that it was a a new building  this there must be discovery on this issue and that's and there is a dispute over whether the slab was disturbed if the slab was not the start if a jury was to determine that the slab was not disturbed then this was a remodel in the building permit w appropriately revo if the building slab was so if significant slabs significant parts of the slab were disturbed then there could be the potential for a revocation or suspension because it would be an undue building it would be a new building but still there would have had to been preacherman ation imposed germination notice afforded to w of rockville regarding this and there definitely was not and even if the city of rockville had good cause which that we could time they did not to revoke the building perm a demolition but that they were planning to demolish them so much can it page thirty four the joint appendix does refer to the term demolition and i do want to stress that there were blueprints provided to the city of rockville and there was narratives provided to the city of iraq and it and the city of rockville approved this this permit and beyond and whether b m w exceeded its blueprints is certainly not in this i this is exactly the situation that was alluded to by the judge will consent when he issued an opinion in an american car chiropractic association versus trying project health in the point behind allowing a district court not only consider the complaint and the attachments to the point is that it's a slippery slope to allow a plaintiff to go ahead and make allegations that are flatly contradicted b records and that is precisely what is the case here the complaint in this particular case reference is that and this is page twelve of the record a paragraph thirteen that the application made plain the intent to raise the building but to keep the foundation now when you look at the site plan for this particular project and nothing further could be the truth there are references in site plan that specifically indicate that there would be no destruction of the building itself that it was going to be a renovation at page forty four of the record the existing building is going to be gotten renovated but not expanded  when you look at page forty six what's the difference between guided in demolition the term got to be fairly construed to mean demolition well  the there is other references to i think in terms of god it would be in this particular case that there would be in an interior renovation as opposed to the raising of the building itself and  the site plan is reviewed by the zoning official to determine whether there is compliance with the code itself that's what is it and that zoning official looked at the site plan application which indicated a renovation that was going to be done and found that that is a minor site approval and doesn't have to go through a different process and that's one of the things that the judge the district court looked at and said plainly based on what he is contained in the site plan application was a contemplated renovation as opposed to a demolition of the building or raising of the building and then of course or some other issue in terms of the building permit and there is some confusion i would agree your honor as to how one would interpret that language contained in the building permit application i read it as it's going to remain the existing building but there's going to be an interior demolition of the two spaces make it one the point there your honor is that that was the basis that the information that was provided to the city was not correct and  i i kind of a can this to you know it's not the it's not the courts responsibility necessarily point the attorneys to the correct authority for particular proposition if the onus is on the attorneys to go ahead and point to the court the proper authority and in this particular case b m w of rockville had an obligation to buy accurate correct material that it didn't provide it simply did not do so which warranted  this the suspension that was issued in july that coupled with the fact that the owner had indicated that he too had never contemplated that this building was going to be raised and there would be this issue in terms of plan would need what scope of work and in what provisions of the code would be to be satisfied so the information contained in the site plan application is clearly not in my view correct if it specifically states renovation as opposed to something else that because that information is incorrect renders the building permit that was subsequently issued white and therefore there's no property right begin with this particular case so you know it would i guess what you're saying is just take it out of this context that somebody makes a representation to the government about this is what we want to do we want to do one two and three and then they go ahead and do one two three four five and six and that even though they say their documents say they're going to do one two three four five and six they never had a mission before if i didn't think that is exactly correct one and it's sort of an eye or ironic situation where in this particular case that the plaintiffs wish to be the beneficiary of the fact that they did not candidly disclose what they were going to do in the data is the basis of their property right and the maryland law is very clear that to have a property right you must have a valid  based upon the information that was provided there wasn't a valid permit to give rise to a property right that the second issue the court went on to conclude that even if there was a property right there was not a deprivation and i must confess  honour's and i i've looked in vain for a case where there's a perceived or old due process claim resulting from the suspension of a building permit certainly there's lots of authority when you as i am not your honor i'm not but it is minute something that happens every day our work work work stop work orders are issued in jurisdictions around the state of maryland throughout the country and generally the that the the approach for resolving those is either through the administrative process of the local jurisdiction itself and or through the state court system judge well consented and c n n vs city of rockville which was recently issued in october you know made the observation that the federal court should sparingly get involved in land use disputes under one nine hundred eighty three primarily because the local jurisdictions and the local courts are adequately prepared to address those issues so you know there is a remedy and when my counsel says well you know there's no there's no ability to do anything in state court of course or you could go in and request an emergency injunction how you could seek declaratory really you could go through the appeal process through the city of rockville what you shouldn't be able to do though your hon is sit on your hands and not do anything and then years after the fact go ahead and say i have a federal civil rights claim for procedural due process when you failed to avail yourself of any process in the first place isn't there argument that they were lol into sitting on their hands by your suspension notice that said specifics will follow never did well that reflect an exchange between the appellant's council and the city of rockville that's in the record that the day before the day before that that's the day before the suspension when you write the suspension letter you say more to come but is there any evidence that that actually though the more to come i think came out at a later point there certainly was some there was certainly an exchange between appellants counsel mr barr and the city the they basically when it was determined that the process that this was not a renovation this was a demolition it triggers a different process i differ level you and so all to my only new plants were submitted improved on mar sixteenth two thousand and fourteen and the building was built so this was not a situation where it was and was built on or this building permit so the reality is there was not a situation where the building perm owner in the fall then wrote a letter saying it was ok in october the the owner then said it i consent and plans were subsequently submitted to the city and those plans were approved that the lay i don't believe i respectfully submit does not give rise even if you have a property right i don't believe that gives rise to to a deprivation of anything because the stop work order was proper it was appropriate under circumstances and finally and i follow up or judge on read it and that is this issue more to come i was a little troubled by the fact that there was never a notice of violations issued in the case sickly given th world it would have said you have the right to appeal within x number of days as which is in the record the cyberman the issue with regard to the stop work order that was issued for settlement control issue which predated this issue in early july of two thousand and thirteen a stop work order was issued or settlement settlement control violation and that notice said you have the right to appeal than x days i guess my my response your honor would be that parties have an obligation once the suspension is given to avail themselves and learn of whatever rights they have and even if they did not wish to use the administrative process through the city  that still they still have the right to go ahead and go to the circuit court from a government county and march in and request an emergency petition for relief so either one of those were available to them i think that withing the option of just saying we're going to do nothing i don't think is while they're there so exhaustion remedy that's necessarily arter nine hundred eighty three in the context of a procedural due process claim when your claim is you need to have notice and an opportunity to be heard as the court correctly observed more versus city of gaithersburg when you have that right at the state level that there is no procedural due process claim because you did have the right to go to the state system and to avail yourself of that process one other question about the process and i guess none of this matters we agree with you that there was no right had in first place but the other thing that i found a bit person to you know go through that process just like there's a burden placed on anyone who wants to go through any particular litigation process oh yeah i mean the burden in the judicial process is the filing the not the pay the salaries of the judge  right but i don't in your honor i can't answer your question because i'm not familiar with how other municipalities and all that and quite frankly i'm not even a million without often this process is utilized in the city of brockville  injunction and city of rockville would have to have a lawyer show up and represent and defend whatever they had done but having done neither i followed either process i would respectfully submit that even if there was a property right anymore if there was a there's been much made about the interior of the alleged plans of an interior renovation what is submitted as part of the site plan is a matter of dispute the  what exactly did the city of rockville think that b m w of rocket was planning to do with a fairly dilapidated building that housed a furniture store and an old restaurant so and that is that is a that is a crucial question what did the city of rockville how did the city of rockville read what the documents were that were submitted by b m w of rockville and that is an issue for discovery and not twelve the sex the we do know that b m w brockville submitted blueprints and how those blue with those blue prints said and how they were interpreted may be in fact a matter for expert discovery and respectfully not a matter for the lawyers to to is is part of this lawsuit if a building if the building owner revoked his consent be in that city of rockville still should have issued a stills still would have had to have required pre term a nation post terminations notice but your may whether october or november two thousand and thirteen it's not until may two thousand and fourteen that a new site plan application is approved by the city of rockville in building then commences thereafter so that was that approved after submitted in may of fourteen it was i believe it was submitted in may two thousand and fourteen after there was negotiations between the city of rockville and b m w of rockville from december t late december two thousand and thirteen until may of two thousand and fourteen over this bill two requirement b m w brockville contended that the that it didn't apply in the city of rockville was refusing to to to change its position and ultimately b m w of rockville the the parties reached an agreement that a that the actual building wouldn't change the footprint of the building when changed they just hang something a little fora part of the route from the building like  like a canopy and drop it down closer to the bill to line and that was all and that's that that was ultimately the solution here but it took an enormous period of time and and there was the end at no point was there opportunity for an appeal that we do contend that the city's code if applicable to this situation is constitutionally inadequate i think our briefs make that clear that neither the district court nor the city of rockville has submitted a single case to show that in a seven day appeal period is constitutionally adequate or that requiring the payment of three architecture engineers to hear your appeal is constitutionally adding that plaintiffs are like if we went into the circuit court we would have met then met immediately with the city of rockville saying we have an appellate process and our response would have been what it's not constitutionally adequate we is what the city of rock that was code provides specific grounds basis for when a permit can be suspended or revoked that is precisely because that is example of the type of cause that exists and therefore the city of rock those codes create the property the property interests that would become constitutionally protected distinguishable the only similarity is that the city of rockville was actually involved in it see this court repeatedly said that see any sienna corp which is known as i know it is easy storage did not have a due process claim because they never even applied for a building permit here b m w of rockville clearly applied for a building permit and received a building permit c n n is clearly distinguished there's also was a reference just a moment ago to b m w of rockville sitting on  hands the clearest example of sitting on one's hands is the city of rockville from july two thousand and thirteen until december two thousand and thirteen there was no there's no communication of any in the notice