We'll hear argument and 17 423 Hay Street Bridge restoration group against the city of San Antonio. Court. You will present argument for the petitioner. The petitioner has reserved five minutes for rebuttal. Good morning. Present in the court this morning are many members of the Hay Street Bridge restoration group and members of the Hay Street Bridge Community Coalition. There was some concern and I wanted to mention that your honors that the write up in the little brochure is not accurate but that I assure them that that is not this court's understanding of the case. The important issue before the court in this case is whether the city was immune from a breach of contract action brought by the Hay Street Bridge restoration group. This court has decided several cases involving governmental immunity from municipal entities and the law has been significantly clarified by these decisions. As you know there are two parts of the question of whether or not the city had governmental immunity. First whether the city entered the contract in pursuit of its governmental capacity and therefore whether it was clothed with derivative governmental immunity from the state. The court of appeals said yes it had immunity. The second part of the issue of course is if the city was acting in a governmental capacity and had derivative governmental immunity was that immunity waived by the local government's contract claims act. On the question of whether or not the city had governmental immunity the court specifically addressed this question in was in two which was decided on June 1st of this year before or I'm sorry after we had completed briefing on the merits. So we didn't have an opportunity to discuss that case and to apply what the court announced as a four part test. So I would like to go over that and one of the first exhibit that we've distributed is the Watson II decision and in that case Justice Boyd writing for the court announced a four part test to determine whether or not when the city of San Antonio entered the contract with the Hay Street Bridge restoration group it was acting in a governmental or a proprietary function. The first of the tests is whether the city's acting entering this fundraising contract was mandatory discretionary. Clearly the city decided and suggested and drafted this memorandum of understanding the contract in this case in order to help them gather resources for the Hay Street Bridge restoration project. This was a discretionary decision. It was merely that they wanted to have a source of funding. Was the funding the second part of the four part test is whether the fundraising agreement intended to benefit the general public or the city's residents. Clearly the purpose of this fundraising contract was to generate resources for the city and that was to benefit the city. Would the public derive any benefit from that though? Not from the fundraising contract itself. No. It was purely for the purpose of supplementing the city's resources. Explain that more because it really seems that that was to benefit the public. There's no doubt. There's no doubt that the work of the Hay Street Bridge restoration group was intended by the group to benefit the public. That's what they did. They worked before and after the contract doing that. But the contract that the city required of the Hay Street Bridge restoration group required the restoration group to continue its best efforts to raise funds, both cash and in-kind donations for the Hay Street Bridge restoration project. So from the city's perspective, what it was seeking was fundraising services. So, is that? I understand your answer. Yeah, that's right. And that was really what was undertaken by the group was generating funds, soliciting donations of cash, soliciting donations. When the project started, when the contract was entered, the city didn't even own the bridge. So, it was the Hay Street Bridge restoration group that negotiated and convinced Union Pacific, along with the city, who was their partner by this time, to donate the bridge. How does the group define its primary purpose? The primary purpose of the group is to preserve and maintain the Hay Street Bridge for the purpose of educating and promoting the community identity. The Hay Street Bridge is both a historic engineering monument, as well as a cultural monument for San Antonio's east side, the traditionally African-American part of San Antonio. So, their motive in entering into this contract surely was to benefit the community, but the city's motive was to generate funds. But where's that distinction? Because everything that you're saying to me sounds like it's very beneficial to the public, the historical significance of this very important project. And where's the distinction? The city normally would restore and maintain historic properties as part of their normal functioning. In this case, they required the Hay Street Bridge restoration group to generate resources for this preservation, to obtain the bridge and then to preserve it. So, yes, the city in agreeing to preserve the Hay Street Bridge agreed and the public benefited from that. But when the city said, we will require you to do fundraising services, and in exchange, we promise that whatever resources are generated by you will be allocated to the Hay Street Bridge restoration project. So, it's that contract that's in dispute, that separate fundraising contract, which, yes, the Hay Street Bridge restoration group agreed to that contract because it was part of their larger mission, but the city didn't have to do that in order to preserve the bridge. The reason they entered into that fundraising contract was simply to generate funds. But it's likely the project would not have been preserved for that, correct? Well, here's what happened. The Hay Street Bridge restoration group, you know, searched for resources, identified the possibility of a federal grant, generate, you know, got pro bono services committed to preparing an application for that grant, convince the city to join on that application, the federal government, the grant was awarded for a $2.9 million grant, and the city, at that point, said, well, we're not going to accept that grant unless the Hay Street Bridge restoration group agrees to give us fundraising services. But that's not a normal practice. The city says, oh, this is like other projects, but it's not true. We were unable to find any other instance in which the city required a fundraising contract with a community organization. So they went out, they did something unusual, the city, entering into this contract, and the reason for it was they didn't want to commit any money to this preservation of the bridge. The promise that the city made in exchange for the group's promise to provide these services was to dedicate any funds raised to this project, right? Was it also to create the park or to use this property as the park? Was that a promise made in consideration for the group's services? That was not a part of the original contract, no. It's clear that the original contract, and as the jury found, the word funds includes both cash and in-time donations. It's clear from the very beginning that there was a contemplated in-time donations in the form of land and the bridge and other such resources.  And it's my understanding there's a fact issue as to whether the donation of this piece of land was the result of the group's efforts versus something the city did on its own? No, Your Honor, there's no fact issue on that. Is everybody agrees that the group generated this? The group generated it. If we disagree with you and believe that there is governmental immunity here, can you address whether that immunity has been waived? Absolutely. Under the Local Government Contracts Act, as you know, this is a service contract covered by that act under section 152 that is 271.152. Governmental immunity is waived for contracts subject to this act and it says for the purpose of adjudicating. But you're seeking specific performance and there is an argument that that can never be. And I've included in the back of exhibit three is the Complete Act and exhibit two is the version of section 153 that applies to this case. There have been various amendments and that's the one that applies here. As I said, the waiver, the provision, and this is drawing on this Court's decision in Zachary which really sorted out the interaction and interplay between section 152 and 153. 152 waives immunity subject to the other limitations in the act, including section 153. So the Court of Appeals looked at section 153, which again you have in the exhibits, and said well, 153 prohibits any action that does not include a request for money damages. And the Court then said the only money damages sought were specific performance and therefore immunity was not waived. That's an incorrect reading, incorrect on contract law and incorrect on the statute. Contract law as you know allows alternative remedies. One is monetary damages, compensatory damages, and the other is specific performance. Most cases seek monetary damages and indeed specific performance is not available if there is a reasonable and an adequate monetary award, whether or not it's granted or whatever. In this case, this is one of those rare cases in which monetary damages are not adequate to remedy the group's injury. The group sought to better the community. They didn't seek a payment for their fundraising services. What injury is left? The city says the project has been completed and the property has been sold and the funds were credited to the city's involvement, the city's funding, so there's nothing left. The project is not complete. There is no visitor center. There is no place for parking of school buses and other people, visitors to the bridge. There are no restroom facilities. There are none of the facilities that the project threw out and this was clear in the evidence at trial that there was always an assumption that this land would be used as a visitor center. But let me take a step back from that and just focus, if I will, on the city's motion to dismiss. The affidavit, tendered with that motion, gives you no time, no personal knowledge. I assume that what they're referring to, as your honor said, the sale of the land. I'm assuming that that was a sale that happened before the city filed its notice of appeal. So apparently the city, after four years of an appellate litigation, is now saying that this case was moved before we filed our notice of appeal. We don't know because the affidavit doesn't tell you when any of the events that it talks about. Moreover, as I said, it doesn't tell you anything other than that this affidavit, declareant, is familiar with this project. Well, a lot of people are familiar with the project. I think she says that the land was sold to the animal beer company. We have not yet had post-judgment discovery to which we are entitled, but I assume that they're talking about a transfer that happened in 2014. But the public records show that that transfer was not to the animal beer company, as it says in the affidavit, but to the Seymour Texas Land Company. So on its face, the affidavit is inaccurate at least as far as the public records are concerned. Moreover, she says, well, this money was taken and allocated to the project. But a few months later, after the sale of this land, we see a check for the exact amount written to the animal beer company. We don't know, and we're entitled to discovery on what happened. First of all, what time period is the court, is the city talking about? Was it before they even filed a notice of appeal, in which case it's really problematic. But second of all, on the law in Houston, we are entitled to see what was done with the money. Firstly, your time is expired. Thank you. Are there any other questions? Thank you. We'll hear from the city. May it please the court. Mr. Truesdale and Mr. Poza will present arguments for the respondent. Mr. Truesdale will open with the first five minutes. May it please the court. Commissioner's brief in this case concludes with the following statement. And it's in repetitive briefs, but the statement is, the only thing left to be done in this case is for the city to perform the part of the contract that it was ordered to do so in the judgment. Justice Heck, you just asked what relief is left to be performed in this case. And the answer to that is in the judgment itself. This case is not about a park. The judgment was not about a park. The judgment in this case ordered as follows. It says it is therefore ordered and decreed that the city of San Antonio shall allocate, apply, and use all funds raised by Plaint of Hay Street Bridge Restoration Group by applying said funds. If the city complete the project as envisioned, there were a recitation of validity of things that weren't completed? Well, yes. The city has completed all that. Here's the most important part. What did the judgment requires to do? The judgment required us to apply and allocate funds. And the funds that are at issue in this case are the funds that were generated from the property. The fund, a portion of property can't be applied to a budget. The funds that are generated from the sale of a property can be allocated to a budget. And that's what happened here. Now, the reason I'm focusing on the judgment, obviously, is that's what we have to show that we've satisfied. But more importantly, not only is the relief that the judgment granted important, but the relief the judgment did not grant is equally important. Because the claims in this case that involved any allegations about the use of the property as a park were denied by the jury. The jury found that the property was not held, owned, used, or held as a park. And accordingly, the transport denied the territory relief that had anything to do with the property as used as a park. Does the visitor's center fall within the ambit of park? A visitor's center, theoretically. Does that fall within park? It means that part of a park? Or is that a stand-alone? That's not, with respect, the question is, is the property held as a park? And the property was not held as a park. And when the judgment says the property is held as funds and you must allocate the funds as the agreement says you must, then the question is, did we do what the judgment said that we must do? And the question is answered by the affidavit that says, there's not an affidavit. The declaration, Your Honor, I'm sorry. But it says that the funds that were generated from the sale of the property were so allocated. And that's dispositive. When do you assert that happened? After the sale of the property. And here's another point that's important because it has to do with the distinction between Alamo, Brewing, or the Seymour Company. Bottom line is that in every pleading that the petitioners held of the trial court, they complained that the city of San Antonio had put an ordinance out to sell this property to Alamo Brewing Company, quote, or its affiliates. And the record shows that the affiliate is Seymour, which is the owner of Alamo Brewing Company. So if there's a deviation between the names, the names are consistent with respect to the relationship of the parties. And that's not, even beside the point in any event, because there's no dispute that the property was sold. So on December 4th, 2014, and this is 2018, so when does the city assert that the judgment was compliant with? In 2014 after the sale. Well, and along the same lines, it's just striking that if your position is that you satisfied the judgment in 2014, what were you doing for all those years litigating the case? That's a very good question. And the answer is, is that when this case was, when we sought the appeal and we were pursuing a judgment, reversing a plea to the jurisdiction that denied our claim to governmental immunity in connection with the specific performance claim, we wanted a judgment on that. We wanted to get that taken care of. And the other fact is, Justice Blacklock, is that throughout the history of the litigation, particularly on appeal, the petitioner's position has been somewhat of a moving target with respect to its interpretation of what the judgment imposed upon us, what duties it imposed, what relief it was afforded. You know, I noted this in the motion to dismiss that we filed throughout the history of this case and to this day at this argument, the city still cannot, or the group does not identify what relief it wants in the event that it prevails in this court. So did you recently discover that you satisfied the judgment or did you know all along you satisfied the judgment and you were still seeking an opinion in your favor from the Court of Appeals? The question of when we discovered that, or when it occurred to a council that the judgment had been satisfied and the case was moved, that's a different question. But the bottom line point is that once we discovered that, we filed our motion and the consequences of that motion, whether we knew about it in 2015 or we knew about it in August of 2018, the consequences are that it determines the fact that the judgment has been satisfied and if the judgment has been satisfied, there's no relief left to be granted. And I just asked the court to consider if this court reverses the immunity ruling and sends this case back, what more is there to be done? The petitioner asks in the briefing, you know, all that is left to be done is what is ordered by the judgment. And our contention is everything that the judgment ordered us to do has been done and this dispute is moot. Nothing in the... Any other questions? Thank you, Mr. Trinsale. Mr. Poser, we'll hear from you. Mr. Boyd, to your question, the Court of Appeals did not reach underlying factual disputes on the merits. For instance, the city has always contended that the 803 North Cherry property was donated but not by the efforts of the group. The city contends there's a fact issue on whether the group generated that donation. And if in fact your... if in fact the group did not generate the donation, then the property doesn't fall within the MOU at all. We believe the property doesn't fall within the MOU just based on the judgment itself. But independently of that, we do not believe that this land that was donated was donated by them. We do not believe that the land is funds under the memorandum that could go through the San Antonio Area Foundation that could be used. We do agree that if it is those things, to Mr. Trusdale's point, if it is those things, we've done that. We don't... By allocating the sale price to the budget. In effect, really, I mean, money is... You contend that there was never a contractual obligation on the part of the city to... a contractual obligation to the group to build the park or to use the property for... Exactly. We believe our obligations are limited to the document, the memorandum. But the MOU refers to the Hey Street Bridge project which was described in the grant application to the federal government which included a park and the parking and all of that, right? Not that we know of. I mean, the parking and all that never came up. And I guess if I could sort of roll it back into our sort of Boston II analysis, if you look at the ordinance, if you look at the undisputed testimony, the author of the memorandum, if you look at the memorandum itself, and then if you look at finally the city-state contract that actually creates the funding and creates the project itself. If you start with the May 2001 ordinance, it describes exactly... This is sort of the enabling and ordinance that sort of got everybody on board together, both the group and the city. And it talks about what was then called Neighborhoods Acting Together with the Planning Department of a study of the potential uses of the historic Hey Street Bridge. It's envisioned in that ordinance that there is going to be an application made through the state of Texas, the statewide transportation enhancement program. This is going to be a state project. The bridge is an instance of, an instantiation of, this sort of broader statewide project. It's not even a question of going to the Tort Claims Act and finding, you know, bridge for the city. That there's going to be this called TEA 21 application process. The scope of work is determined. The scope of work has nothing to do with anything other than the bridge itself and the restoration of the bridge, rehabilitation of the bridge. And indeed, this has nothing to do with the dichotomy issue, but I think it's important in that ordinance it states, whereas approval of this ordinance will support initiatives of the downtown strategic plan, the downtown neighborhood plan, the master plan in Craig, as well as freeing up lands for new development, including residential development, just adjacent to the bridge. So, public policy-wise, the bridge was maybe the jewel in the crown. Public policy-wise, the bridge is the project, that's the governmental project, but the city is looking at both the importance of that overall development and trying to have development, in particular residential development, on the east side. I in residential development or residential development, that's going to benefit lower income communities. There's no question that outside of the bridge project, the other things that were going on would be considered, I mean, there's nothing to do with the memorandum, but would be sort of proprietary interest the city would have in the east side next to the bridge and the bridge sort of forming the basis. That was sort of their public policy. But it's sort of like looking, I guess what I would say is the group, or there may be other citizens, I mean, there is not unanimity. There is a large number of east side residents that are very favoring the development that's going on right now. There's a group that disagrees with that, so that's not atypical. But the one thing that I don't think the group can say is they can't claim surprise or shock that it would be used for residential development on the land adjacent to the bridge. Since 2001, that was sort of the public policy of the city. Well, since you brought up the policy, that's what I'm just trying to determine whether in the end the low-income residents actually benefit from what's actually taking place. The low-income residents will be benefiting presumably by what the bridge attracts as far as development. So that's the idea. I mean, City of San Antonio thought the Alamo Dome on the east side would have that same benefit. I don't think that's proven to be what their expectations were. We are seeing residential development now in the land that was sold as a matter of fact on 803 North Cherry that is residential development that's intended to be. And I'll only bring that up to have the larger context of where this is fitting in. Before we get to the dichotomy issue, going back to I.T. Davey and Cook and Federal Sign and all the late 90s, 2000 cases, the court repeatedly referred to sovereign or governmental immunity as barring suits against the government for money damages. And it seems like lately we've sort of blurred that a little bit but it seems to me that there's a preliminary question to be answered. Does immunity even apply to a claim that does not seek money damages? And I wonder if that's something you've looked at and your client have a position on? I mean obviously one of the motivating factors for us was remember that the city is going to be paying the 20% whether they make it all up or whether they're short, money's fungible we paid them. What was important to us was the fact that a trial court had said that we had to specifically perform that very thing and we thought we had immunity from that. They brought the suit under 271 and we said you won't find the remedy in 271, we have immunity for that. And whether you look at the 271 issue as the Austin Court of Appeals did in the West Travis County Public Utility case where because there's no money like ours due and owing under the contract is this really even something that's captured? Is this contract even captured by or subject to the act? In that case Justice Pemberton had a concurrence in dissent basically a couple of lines that went off in the second question that is is there a remedy for which there's waiver? So although our Court of Appeals and our briefing focus on what unpacked if you will Justice Pemberton had had is his concurrence in dissent, he comes out in the same place but for a different reason. So we unpack that you could say the same thing is true in this case. That is is this claim for a specific performance where there's really no obligation there's no right that we have to their services under the memorandum they're using their best efforts there's no liability if they fail to use their best efforts if they fall short in their fundraising there's no liability it's basically sort of rolling it back into the Washington too the reason why the only reason the memorandum exists it's only reason for existence is to make sure the bridge project happens and that's true I was just going to ask before you move on damages and remedies available under the statute are there any remedies I mean there wouldn't be any remedies in this case because there's no money damages even if you'd have to rewrite the memorandum it'd have to be a different document of course the majority in the Austin Court of Appeals looked at essential terms under the Act after include things such as the amount of now as I understand the group's argument on that issue is the Act has specific damage items that are waived and the Act goes to the additional trouble specifically saying those things that aren't those damage elements that aren't waived and therefore in specific performance is not captured in either of those boxes so somehow it's there they characterize it as a remedy not necessarily an element of damages for a bridge of contract right and I think it's sort of want to impose well it's just we know in contract law if money damages are inadequate one can go to specific performance fine for contract law but that has nothing to do with the immunity issue and so in effect they say since the legislature may not understand maybe their best argument or at least their attempt at what I would consider their best argument would be well here's the waiver for balance due and owing things of that nature here's some things that for sure don't count as being waived consequential damages and such and so well gosh there's no mention of specific performance so they must have intended that because they know what contract law is well they may know what contract law is and not want to perform it so I don't think if we're going to maintain a clear and unambiguous waiver standard that that implicitness is going to count I would I would just add in volume 5 of the reporters record the group called as a witness Nina Nixon Mendes she's the author of the memorandum this is undisputed testimony and it helps corroborate harmonize both the ordinance in the memorandum and ultimately the city-state contract in that just briefly in that testimony she says this is a memorandum of understanding that was drafted in conjunction with the proposal that was sent to council for funding of the Hays Creek Bridge and she is asked says I was asked to prepare a memorandum of understanding by our planning director Emil Masavius who's the one who signed it I was manager for the neighborhood division at the time and that was a role I assumed with other neighborhood groups that we that we worked with in developing memorandum of understanding she's describing how this isn't the first time that's been done and she says I was being asked to prepare this because the Hays Street Bridge restoration group wanted the city to apply for this federal funding the T-21 enhancement funds and it was our planning directors believe that it would be important to demonstrate to city council in submitting this grant application that the Hays Street Bridge group showed that they were interested in raising funds towards the project as well the questions asked and did the city go out looking for somebody to do the fundraising for the city to do that 20% match no no again the idea behind the memorandum of understanding was that the group was already working on the fundraising and we just wanted to sort of crystallize the understanding that we had with them when we presented the contract for council they were interested in raising the match the cash match for the project and so that's why we sat down and drafted the memorandum of understanding the that's drafted and signed by the group and by the city on June 4th 2002 the next month it does work it is effective the next month the city signs the contract with the state that had been signed by the state in January 2002 it was on the mayor's desk if you will or the city manager's desk for some number of months the memorandum is the inducement to a city with limited resources on infrastructure projects on why this one works and so yes I would say citizen lobbying was effective and they thought that this would help as well there's no and that's why the memorandum of understanding is rather cavalier about best efforts no liability it's really just sort of this it's really asking a community that has been involved continue to be involved to assure the decision makers of the city that they would continue to be involved the mission accomplished and walk away anything that would keep that involvement was important was important to the policy makers in deciding what infrastructure projects get the green light which ones don't so I don't think I think the evidence is clear and if you look at the memorandum of understanding every paragraph is tagged to the project every paragraph in that contract is tagged to the Hay Street Bridge project in the scope of the project if you look at the city-state contract and the memorandum of understanding is strictly the bridge and its rehabilitation there's no reference to anything outside of that project but the jury found otherwise they did assuming we don't have immunity that's what we're addressing that's what we were going to address with the court of appeals that they didn't reach was that this has nothing to do with this has nothing to do with other things but right now in front of this court we have the jury's findings and the trial court's judgment based on those findings without trying to go behind that and question that we're all stuck with that right now it's just a question of whether there was immunity right but what we're stuck with is a judgment that will never give them what they want I mean they're not appellants below they're not cross appellants below they can't touch that judgment their problem is there needs to be the motion to dismiss sort of ferrets it out for this court their problem and their position has always been they don't like the judgment that was entered they think they have jury findings that should give them different better relief they never filed a notice of appeal there is a sanctions motion pending against the city of San Antonio right now that whenever it goes if it goes back and the judgment's in place they will be trying to hold the city for doing what for doing the very thing that the judgment itself says that we have to do because they have a different interpretation they believe either there was an oral agreement on the side that needs to be flushed out and added to a judgment which would have been a nice notice of appeal point that they would have to bring up because it's more relief than they got are they believe and sometimes say that the judgment is ambiguous and once the court clarifies the trial court judgment changes that judgment will be held in contempt for what the judgment will say but all that is yet to be decided if we agree with your motion to dismiss that this petition is moved because you've sat at the city has satisfied its obligations under the judgment then we dismiss this case and it gets active again in the court of appeals on all that you've just described well if the case is dismissed I presume it's dismissed across the board because although we still don't we still say that they did not donate the land we still say that the land can't be used as funds we in fact did that assume it was our position is well assume it was donated assume we're wrong about that assume they brought the donation assume that land can be funds and assume that land doesn't have to go to the city turn your ear foundation like the document says assume all of that in their favor we've done that very thing any other questions thank you Mr. Poser Ms. Castley you have five minutes I would like to say this is the first time that I've heard that there's a contested fact about whether or not the hastier bridge restoration group solicited the land talk about a moving target I wanted to just Justice Guzman be the project what the city is now doing all along this has been about a sweetheart deal it's been about giving this land along with the money to a close friend of the former react that's what it's about the project is going to have housing for the wealthy that will have a beautiful view I don't think so I just wanted to give you this low income or wealthy or a good policy or a bad policy has nothing to do with what this court's deciding at this point but council did mention public policy that sort of surrounded the circumstances so to that extent thank you for that clarification Thank you Justice and Justice Boyd you asked whether immunity applies if no money is sought I looked into that question it's not answered it certainly one of the justifications current justifications for immunity is that it saves the public fisk I assume that if it does apply we rely on the second justification which has to do with not binding the state in the future but as far as I know that has not been decided by this court I wanted to say that the motion to dismiss rests on two very flawed legal arguments one is that the judgment has a plain meaning of funds which is not the same meaning that the jury found for that word interpretation of the judgment is something that begins with the district court and then can be appealed later on but we filed a motion to show cause why the city should not be held in contempt in 2014 all of the issues that the city is now bringing to you to decide have been waiting for resolution in a hearing before the district court and the same with the interpretation of judgment we're entitled to have to have the judgment interpreted as any contract or any other piece of legislation would be interpreted so that's flawed the second one is this novel idea that the jury finding that the city did not own claim or hold the land as a park somehow binds us from rescission of a transfer that was made in violation of the judgment there were two claims initially in this case the breach of contract and a secondary claim under local government code section 253 which has to do with when a municipality transfers a piece of land that is quote owned, held or claimed as a park and the remedy for that is if it's done that then there has to be an election held by the populist okay in the beginning of the trial we had to decide whether to go forward our name played to that action was ill at the time and second of all that's not the remedy we've ever wanted in this case so that was the only reason for that jury finding and yes the jury found in other words that this land prior to the trial prior to 2010 prior to 2012 was not held by the city as a park we knew that it wasn't part of the park um you know a list of properties that's not the point and it certainly doesn't preclude it doesn't preclude the district court from finding that a transfer in violation of the judgment has to be rescinded what they do next is up to them but we're entitled to hearing our motion to show cause and we have a remedy available that is that this actually comply with the judgment um excuse me um the other point is the relationship to the bridge and the um public benefit and that goes to the question of whether or not the city was acting in a governmental or proprietary function here it's worth cautioning um and recognizing as this court has done repeatedly in its decisions that the Texas court claims act list of governmental functions was expanded for the purpose of bringing more of the municipal actions under the caps in the tort claims act or the tort reform act what it was yes that this court has said that list can be guidance for courts but the question of whether governmental immunity exists in the first place is one for the judiciary the there was a constitutional amendment empowering the legislature to define the scope of governmental immunity for all purposes but they haven't done that they've only defined it for the purposes of tort claims not for the purposes of contract claims and so even if this well that's one point the second point is in the WASN 2 that you all decided just recently this court said a proprietary action that is that touches on or in some ways involved with governmental action is not to be treated as a governmental function unless it is essential to that purpose so that goes to whether or not this contract was essential to a governmental purpose for the city any other questions thank you Ms. Casterly the case is submitted and the court will take another break to assess all rise


The latest version of the World Health Organizations, WHO, classification of brain tumors includes more molecular biomarkers than ever before. This allows for more accurate diagnoses of gliomas, as well as providing new opportunities for treatment such as targeted therapy, immunotherapy, and precision clinical trials. Molecular pathology has been used to identify specific subtypes of gliomas, which can be used to tailor treatments to individual patients. This article was authored by Rui Chao Chai, Chin Yu Fang, Bo Pang, and others.


So, yeah, I've been excited to give this talk for a long time. Actually, this has been kind of my jam for a while. Cognitive bias and how it impacts our judgments and choice. So my name is Jason Hand. I'm at Victor Ops. Victor Ops is on call on incident management. I know a lot of you have already stopped by the table, had a lot of great conversations. Anything that we talk about here today, maybe we can do some more open spaces on it. Or feel free to come by the table. We'll talk more. But that's me on Twitter. Anything I say, for sure? Share it out there with everybody else. The thing I wanted to talk about today is really a fairly complex topic. And it falls in line with a lot of the things that we do as operations people, as developers, as just general DevOps people. But we operate in complex systems. It's sort of the main theme here. And at some point, something's going to break. Things just tend to break. At some point, our servers light up. This might be a small incident. It might be some sort of SEV-1 outage. But the point is, sooner or later, something bad is going to happen. And so what we've started to learn now, or what we're beginning to understand, is actually that the importance of time to detect, as well as the time to acknowledge, is super important. But the time to repair, or the time to recover, or the time to resolve, whatever you want to use there, is actually probably more important than anything. And while a lot of companies, a lot of people still do root cause analysis, a lot of high-performing teams have actually stopped doing root cause analysis. They've realized that our systems are far too complex to really distill it down to one simple problem, something that actually we can identify as the one thing that took out of our system, it's actually going to be a lot of contributing factors. So if you want to distill it down to one thing, it's just change. And really, we want that change. That's just part of what we're doing all the time. And so anyway, with all these contributing factors, we want to actually know more about what's going on. I can go into another 30-minute talk about root cause analysis and how it's a complete waste of your time and all that kind of stuff. So maybe we'll do an open space on that. But we're moving away from this idea of strictly prediction and prevention of problems, and more towards actually recovering from them. So detecting them, acknowledging them, recovering from them, but then probably most importantly, actually learning from them. So it's really important in this day and age that we have this mindset of continuous improvement. And the byproduct of continuous improvement is all of the things like continuous delivery, continuous integration, and of course becoming a learning organization, which is really the big, big thing that most companies really need to focus on lately. And so because of this, our goal is actually the mean time to repair rather than the mean time between failure, which actually Ken's brought up a number of times in funny different ways. But it's true, really. We want to be able to detect what's going on. We want to be able to recover from that fast. And we've all heard fail fast. It's a common phrase in our industry that gets thrown around there. And really the thing I kind of think when I hear fail fast or when I read fail fast is actually we want to recover fast. We want to understand what's going on, and actually be able to do something about it quickly. But then most important is actually conduct some sort of learning review or a post-mortem, some sort of post-incident analysis so that we can identify areas of improvement. We can look for those target conditions. We can make incremental changes. Like Courtney mentioned, boiling the ocean is not what we're out to do. We're just trying to find small incremental changes that actually improve our situation, improve our processes, improve our systems overall moving forward. And so speed becomes a big, big kind of thing that we're focused on. We're trying to get this thing done really quick. But our question, or my question today in the point of this talk is when you're focused on speed and you have all these other constraints of time and the SLAs, don't get me started on SLAs, lost income, angry customers, people on Twitter, all of a sudden there's other things that we have to kind of consider when we've got the pressures of time and everything else that's associated with downtime. When we're operating at a speed like this. And we often get to where this is how a lot of us feel when there's an outage is kind of how I feel right now. Anybody watch the new Muppet Show, by the way? It's awesome. It's really, really good. Anyway, back to the topic. So it turns out we begin to, under these constraints, under speed and everything else, we begin to actually rationalize rather than seek out rationality in some of our decisions and our choices. We have these mental shortcuts, these very systematic mental shortcuts that we take in the name of speed and efficiency when we're trying to solve problems. And much of this has to do with the way that we think as we process these judgments, these decisions and these choices. So a lot of the things that I'm talking about today come from this book. This is a really amazing book. Many of you have probably read it. It's shared quite a bit through our industry. It's very dense. It reads like a high-level PhD kind of textbook. I got through it basically only because I listened to it on audio book, on my flights zigzagging in the country. It took about a month, but it's worth your time, for sure. And in that book, Daniel Kahneman identifies that there are two key ways that we think about everything that we encounter. He calls them System One and System Two. Now System One, also it's not referred to in this book as shallow work, but I've read some other pieces that kind of refer to the same thing as shallow work. So System One, also maybe called shallow work, is really more effortless. So these are things that we just do naturally. They're instinctive. We don't even really have to think about them, but there's also still a lot of systematic errors that seem to creep in under specific circumstances due to our own cognitive bias. It acts without effort or control, and we'll see some examples of that a little bit later, but it's also very, very bad at statistical analysis and even seemingly basic logic. A lot of it's just automatic. They're just things that we do. I sometimes think it's not a technical example, but sometimes I go on these long road trips and a few hours pass by and I stop to think about all the miles that are behind me and I don't even remember any of them. I don't remember the turns. I don't remember hitting my turn signal. I don't remember reaching for the dial. There's just a lot of things that are sort of automatic that we do. We just sort of do it. And then we have system two, and this is more of the deep work stuff, right? This is when we really have to focus, and it also has bias. But system two's defining feature is that it's very effortful, and one of the main characteristics of system two is that it's actually very lazy, and it requires, well it only does really the minimum of what it's required to do, and it also relies a lot on system one for its inputs. And there are vital tasks that only system two can perform that require these efforts, and also these acts of self-control where we actually have to kind of stop and think about what we're doing and how we're thinking, which the intuitions and these impulses of system one really can't actually manage at all. So we have many thoughts and calculations and inputs, all jockeying for our attention, and they all require more than just these automatic and effortless responses. Oh, I just realized I need my audio cable here. Okay, so in a little bit we'll need that, not just yet, but I've got a couple of exercises. So one of the things that I was a little nervous about giving this talk is because I've got some group participation and I've never done a talk where I actually sort of require the audience to get involved a little bit, so hopefully bear with me and this'll go smoothly. Now some of these exercises you may have seen before, so if you have, don't blurt out any answers. Don't ruin it for anybody and hopefully it'll go great here. But the first one, I'm sure maybe a lot of you have seen something like this, but I'm gonna give you a few seconds to read the next sentence and then we'll see how we do. Okay, I failed to say count the Fs, but hopefully you saw that on the screen. So, how many did you count? How many of you counted three Fs? Okay, and how many of you got six? Okay, so it seemed to be about 85, 90% of you saw three and I think I saw about six hands that saw six. So let's look at it again. The correct answer is six. And the reason why you're not seeing them is that you're not spotting the Fs in the word of. Our brain does not process of as F. Let's do another one. Okay, good start. Friday the 13th, good. Okay, so now this one's a little harder. So I want you to take this number, 7093, put it in your head, and then what we're gonna do is we're gonna add one digit to each of those digits, okay? And then we're gonna keep doing that, moving forward. So, that first number was 7093 and now we're 8104, okay? So you kinda got the first one a hint. Now I'm gonna give you about three seconds and we're gonna just keep going through this and we'll see how you do. First one's 7093. Could you do that? All right, not too bad, not too bad. Now, what about, what if it was five digits? Do you think you could have done it if it was five digits or six digits? All right, what if we go a little faster? What if we pretend that this is like production outage? First of all, what was the last number? I'm hearing a lot of numbers, they're all incorrect. Okay, again, got it, 0326. All right, ready? We're gonna do this and we're gonna do it faster. And go. It's really hard, right? Did anybody, was anybody able to actually keep up with the numbers? Okay, did anyone spot any problems? A few people did. So the last transition went from 4760 to 5971. And you probably didn't catch it. Most people don't. How many of you are responsible for being on call? You're carrying, card member, carrying, paging people? Does this feel familiar when you're dealing with something that's broken? For those of you who are on call, you may wanna close your eyes. The next slide is a little bit disturbing. The most cognitively effortful forms of thinking are those that require you to think fast. The additional pressures associated with an outage make it even more effortful. And we end up feeling like this. Okay, here's my portion of this show that has a little bit of audio. So hopefully we got somebody back there, man on the screen, all right? How many passes does the team in white make? The answer is 13. But did you see the moonwalking bear? Did anybody? We were so focused on counting the number of passes with a white shirt so we didn't even notice the bear. Okay, anybody for me with a stoop test? Couple hands, okay. So this next slide, I'm gonna give you about I think six seconds or so to read through it and we'll see how you do. Okay, I should have been, I would say for this, the brainy power in here, we could repower through that sentence pretty quickly, all right? So I guarantee you probably read through it, no problem at all. Now let's try again slightly faster. This time, this exact same words, but there's a few, there's a little bit of a change. All right, so I'll give you about three seconds on this one. Probably didn't get through it, probably didn't get past the first line. And the reason was simply because the colors didn't match the word. Did anybody actually make it past the first line or so? Just a couple of people. So what this is is actually, it's the efficiency to thoroughness trade-off, okay? And mistakes are fairly predictable under these circumstances. And so a little bit about ETTO or efficiency to thoroughness trade-off is that you really can't be highly efficient and highly thorough. You can only be one or the other and we try to find a good balance between those. But a lot of us feel like they can be, we can operate at a high level of efficiency and also be extremely thorough. And the fact is that you just can't. And the reason is because of cognitive bias and a lot of other factors, but a big one, at least what I'm talking about today is cognitive bias. So back to that book, Thinking Fast and Slow, and I'll read you a quote from Kahneman in that book. It says, there are distinctive patterns in the errors that all of us make. Systematic mistakes known as cognitive biases along with impressions and thoughts form within our conscious experience. This occurs naturally without us knowing there, even there or how they came about. The mental work that produces these impressions, intuitions and decisions takes place silently within our own mind. Now there's a ton of cognitive biases and I'm gonna mention a few of them, but this is a whole area of research. I'm fascinated by it and I hope to continue doing more work on it. But let's definitely do an open space because I feel like I'm just gonna have to blast do a lot of this stuff. Let's do another quick sort of example, I guess. So imagine a person, we'll call him James. James is very shy and withdrawn, very helpful person, has a little interest in other people, a little bit of maybe introverted also. Meek and tidy, needs order and structure and has a passion for detail. Now, based on what we know about James, do you think that it's more likely that James is a librarian or that James is a farmer? So who thinks farmer? Okay, and who thinks librarian? Okay, so most of you, most of the room thinks librarian. It was pretty close, about a 50-50 split, but a little bit to edged to librarian. Now, there are more than 20 male farmers to male librarians in the world. And this is an example of us using resemblance, it's a heuristic, but the resemblance of James' personality to that of a stereotypical librarian is typically what pops into most of our heads. And we totally ignored any statistical relevance about what actually is the truth between the differences in librarians and farmers as far as how many there are in the world. So this is known as a representativeness heuristic. We judged the probability of James being a librarian over the farmer simply based on resemblance and circumstantial evidence. And because there are so many more farmers, it's almost certain that someone matching this description is a farmer rather than a librarian. However, we ignored the relevant statistical facts. So a heuristic is really just a shortcut. It's just something our brain does, we don't have much control over it. And it pops up when we're trying to solve problems, especially when we're trying to be quick and efficient about it. So, and then you throw in this idea of, especially if you're somebody who's on call, you are trying to make a lot of quick decisions without certainty about what the results are gonna be, what's going on in some cases, and then you have the constraints of time. I'm gonna read you another quote from this really great article I found on brainpicking.org about associative coherence, which is also related to all this cognitive bias. But it's the notion, or associative coherence is the notion that everything reinforces everything else. Much like our attention, which sees only what it wants and expects to see, our associative memory looks for and looks to reinforce our existing patterns of association and deliberately discounts evidence that contradicts them. And therein lies the triumph and the tragedy of our intuitive mind. I don't know if you can read this up here, but this is an example of us having really poor correlation and causation skills. But I'm not sure if this is true or not, but the divorce rate in Maine somehow has a direct correlation to the per capita consumption of margarine. There's also a direct relation to the consumption of mozzarella cheese to civil engineers, doctorates awarded in the US. Seems legit. And there's also people who drowned by falling into a swimming pool related to the number of films Nick Cage has appeared in. Now, obviously these are meant to be funny, but we do seek out correlation and causation when there's really nothing statistically there or logically there to actually back that up. It's just our mind sort of, you know, and a lot of this is us just sort of trying to deduce and look for patterns and try to find things that are actually maybe related to what's going on. We talked about why we don't do root cause analysis because there's a lot of contributing factors and we wanna understand all of them. We wanna know the story. We don't wanna try to distill it down to just one single thing because tomorrow our system's gonna be different than it was today. So why would we wanna just fix that one thing when tomorrow that one thing's probably not even relevant? So anyway, sometimes we can be really bad at correlation and causation and it's a lot of it has to do with this cognitive bias. In many cases we become very stubborn. We're like, no, this is definitely what's going on and we're extremely confident despite all of the facts and it was a mental shortcut. It's a heuristic. It's our own reliance on them and they can cause predictable errors in our reasoning, decision-making and predictions. We can be very, very confident even though we are blatantly wrong. And then when the constraints of time and pressure, especially time to repair, influence our cognitive efforts, systematic errors are introduced into these judgments and choices. So we've all seen something like this and we all of course respond to our pager and start dealing with it but there are whether you know it or not. There are certain biases that start to creep in. This is another thing that I love talking about is the Kinevan framework. Is anybody familiar with this? This is awesome. You should definitely do some more research on this and maybe we'll do an open space as well. What this essentially is telling us, one, we know that we work in complex systems but this sort of breaks things down into obvious, complicated, complex and chaotic and all of our systems for the most part are going to exist in this complex space. Some of them might be complicated but really they're complex. They're always changing. They're very dynamic. There's a lot of unknown unknowns. When things are going wrong, we must first probe, then sense, then respond. There's a lot of emergent things happening and sometimes things will move over into the chaotic realm and once you get into the chaotic realm, the first thing to do is just act so that we can get back into the complex realm and start to kind of get back into our safe zone but when you look at the obvious and the complicated those aren't the systems that we've built. Our systems, well all I have to say really to prove my point is users. Users alone just makes our systems complex. They start going in and they do things that we didn't know that they could even do. We didn't know that it was even possible. So anyway, it could go on forever about the Kinevan framework so let's do an open space on that as well. But the point is there's a lot of complex steps, complex tasks that we have to do within our complex environments and a lot of those steps, let those things that we have to do, they can't be skipped. We actually have to step through them especially when there's an outage, when there's some sort of problem. But what we can do is actually practice all those steps. And if we drill, drill, drill we can actually become fairly automatic at a lot of the things that we do and some of the stuff that might have been more effortful might be a system two type of effort will then become more of a system one type of effort because it just becomes natural. It's just intuitive for us to do. So some examples of that. We're all familiar with the Chaos Monkey and the whole Simeon Army at Netflix but game days, doing these self-inflicted outages and the recovery efforts, this is just really just simulating an outage so that we can practice our recovery efforts, detecting it, acknowledging it, triaging it, investigating it, actually going through and step by step dealing with an outage sort of in a safe environment or somewhat safe environment but we get better at just dealing with this stuff. There's a guy named Lindsay Holmwood out of Australia. He works at the Australian government digital transformation office. He's given a couple talks on cognitive bias as well. I've got a link at the very end of my slides but on one of his talks, this was a quote from him but he went into great detail about how you really have to practice a lot. Otherwise, when you do get into a real life situation people tend to just sort of deliberate and they don't really know what to do, where to start, what am I supposed to, who am I supposed to call, what do I do in this situation? And that's obviously going to hurt your meantime to recovery. Another area that we can sort of implement to help with these cognitive bias and these steps is actually implementing run books. And run books are nothing more than just a document, maybe even like a wiki type of document or a knowledge base that tells me step by step or whoever's in charge of the recovery efforts, step by step, what is it I'm supposed to do in this situation? Because the fact is when things break it's usually at the worst possible time. And so if that's in the middle of the night or you're in your car, you're on your vacation or you're with your kids or whatever you may not have cognitively all the information you need to start taking a look at this problem. So if you can have those run books available to you that's gonna help out a lot. We've already talked about postmortems. Postmortems are great because they help us learn. Postmortem isn't just to sit around and talk about in a debate what went wrong and who's fault it was. That's like the worst possible thing you could do. It really doesn't matter who's fault it is. We don't really wanna ask why as much as we wanna ask how.  And so, so postmortems avoid the why's go for the how and we really just wanna learn about this. We don't really care who it is that may have hit the button that deleted everything. We just wanna know how it happened so that we can improve things and maybe prevent that. Or at least make it so that the impact is a little bit less. So, practice helps and then also paying attention to your mean time to repair, mean time to acknowledge. This is a report that shows me the mean time to repair for our teams. I wanna know what happened over there. On April 17th, why did it take so long? There's a little bit of a jump there. So I'm gonna ask questions about that because it's important to me to make sure that we are doing better about recovering from our problems faster. The main takeaway or one of the main takeaways from this talk is that we really can't overcome cognitive bias. It's really just important for us to know that it exists. Sometimes it's easier. Well, most of the times it's easier for us to actually acknowledge that it exists and see it in other people's behaviors. Sometimes we don't even notice it. That's another good reason to do postmortems is that you can actually spot other people maybe using something like hindsight bias. And hindsight bias is simply thinking despite all the evidence that we should have known this. We should have known this was gonna happen. And we should have done something about it before. That's a hindsight bias. Don't get caught up in that. And spot it for other people because it's hard for us to spot it in ourselves. Postmortems we already talked about but that's another great way. Normalcy bias, this is a cognitive thing that happens all the time. Just because your server hasn't held a meltdown doesn't mean it won't. But for some reason we're cocky and we think that that's not gonna happen to me. It never has, so it never will. Confirmation bias is another one. This is where we actually seek out information to reinforce what we believe. Now I may have done that for this talk actually, so. But it happens all the time. We believe something and then we go and we find evidence that somehow backs that up. With confirmation bias, we actually ignore alternate explanations. We interpret ambiguous information all in the favor of our own position. It happens all of the time. Here's another little exercise. Which of these lines is longer? Good, I heard some people catch, or no, they probably, but this is the Mueller liar illusion. And all it is, these two lines are exactly identical and if it's just because of those two little, they call them fins on the end, that our minds, it's an illusion. It's just an optical illusion that our brains sometimes catch, especially if you've seen this, but others, when they first look at that, they believe that the line on the bottom is actually longer. And so one of the things, actually I'm just gonna skip because we got one more exercise I wanna show, one more quick video. So similar to the one we looked at earlier, so hopefully you'll maybe do a little bit better this time. Players wearing white past the ball. So same deal, we're trying to count how many passes there are with the white. The correct answer is 16 passes. Anybody get 16? Okay. Did you spot the gorilla? Anybody got the gorilla? For people who haven't seen or heard about a video like this before, about half missed the gorilla. If you knew about the gorilla, you probably saw it. But did you notice the curtain changing color or the player on the black team leaving the game? Did anybody? Let's rewind and watch it again. Let's see. Here comes the gorilla and there goes a player and the curtain is changing from red to gold. So that's called the monkey business illusion and obviously it was a little bit of a setup, but I'm running short on time, so I'm gonna just list off a few more of the cognitive biases that are very common in our industry, especially if you're somebody's own call. Confirmation bias, hindsight bias, we've already kind of talked about. Availability heuristic we touched on as well. The automation bias, this is where we start to automate so many things that we actually, it can lead to erroneous, automated information, overriding correct decisions. Halo effect, we tend to think that other people, because they have a lot of good information or just for a variety of reasons that they actually are better than others. We've also got the framing effect. Also I've got a link to the slides on this, so I'm running a little short on time, so I'm gonna skip those. But the main thing that I wanted to share or sort of the last takeaway here is that there's a lot of things that goes on in our brains and the brain creates behaviors that we may not actually be aware of and there's implications to that, especially in the context of being on call and dealing with outages. So hopefully by the things that you've seen today and the things that we've talked about, you've got a little bit of a deeper understanding of yourself and you can kind of keep some of these things in mind, start looking into making sure you have good postmortems that you're conducting, you've got some runbooks in play and you're actually paying attention to that bias, especially with other teammates when you're starting to discuss issues. So with that, I thank you for your time. You can find the slides at that URL right there. A lot of the stuff I'd love to talk about either back at the VictorOps table or we can do open spaces on a couple of the topics. And that's all I got. Thank you very much.


Hi everyone, Sean with jaspyscasebrakes.com here doing 2021 panini clearly Don Russ basketball 12 box case break picker team number six where we're giving away a free box as well How to be entered in the free box giveaway two or more teams in the break get entered to win No max entries two teams one entry four teams two entries six teams three entries, etc Top name wins the box and all cards ship. We'll do that randomizer at the end of the break Here is our list of customers and respective teams from Matt McLaughlin in the Hawks down to James Robinson in the wizards If you see a name here with a rooftop next to it. That just means they won that team in a team random filler No matter how you got it on the break. Thank you very much and good luck and here is our full list Here's the case That's cool. What is it reminiscent to your team? I mean your old your old movie How's it going Tingo? How are you? Whoa, sure they'll have a table there.  Yeah Yeah, I remember wasn't the Davante Smith Peli one For my ducks a bad news bears jersey you're saying I'm assuming that's what I assumed and then I was like wait a second the nationals in Chicago Maybe he thinks actual like a bear But then try start with that was I was in Texas Jose this is pick your team number six Pick your team eight is coming up after this and then pick your team seven after that Plenty of stuff Henry If you click on the link that nightbot drops in the chat You'll see the current schedule and you'll see a list of breaks that are in orange and yellow That are probably the closest breaks to going tonight if we want to continue or You can just check the website Right above my head there Jaspie's case breaks calm and take a look at everything that's available and see what you want to get into But the stuff on the schedule in yellow and orange orange are the main breaks yellow or fillers for those breaks Are all gonna be the easiest stuff to go tonight. Do all send you the jersey. That'd be cool I'm flying in on the same day Yeah our booth if you check out the our Instagram Jonathan Nick posted where we're gonna be I think we're right at like a vendors entrance or something like that So I'm assuming that they'll let you they would have you guys going in that same entrance exit stuff Not the main entrance exit, you know 61 That's crazy lowest 36 hole total in men's or women's championship history A 61 in round two good for her Congratulations lady How many strokes is she ahead already? And would it be bad to bet against uh bet on a collapse? And that's somebody else in the field will win Good luck everybody. Giannis for the box And Aaron Whittington and John Merant purple for the Grizzlies Mike Krasinski There you go Thanks, Joe And hello Cassius Stanley gold for the Pacers And Aaron Whittington Sabin Lee purple for the Pistons Joe Christian And Nicola Jokic rated rookie tribute For the Nuggets and PJ McNeely John Merant gold for the Grizzlies Mike Krasinski Isaiah Stewart for the Pistons Joe Christian Steph Curry for the Warriors and Miles Kaepern And Ben Simmons purple for the 76ers and James Robinson Emmanuel quickly for the Knicks and Eric Ainge Luca for the Mavericks, Byung Hyun-In Tyrell Terry gold for the Mavericks Byung Hyun-In Cole Anthony for the magic That is Joe Christian Zero gravity Donovan Mitchell for the Jazz and Michael Pacifico Bam on a bio gold for the Heat David Wong Sabin Lee blue to 99 for the Pistons Joe Christian James Weissman For the Warriors That is Miles Kaepern John Merant for the Grizzlies Mike Krasinski and Theo Maladon purple for the Thunder Lance Michihira Sadiq Bay the rookies for the Pistons And Joe Christian Desmond Bain for the Grizzlies Mike Krasinski and Patrick Williams for the Bulls Eric Ainge Jason Tatum purple for the Celtics and Aaron Whittington Isaac Acoro for the Cavaliers Mark Haraki Cole Anthony gold for the magic Joe Christian Sadiq Bay for the Pistons Joe Christian Donovan Mitchell gold for the Jazz and Michael Pacifico LeBron James for the Lakers Miles Kaepern Luca raided rookie tribute For the Mavericks Byung Hyun-In Desmond Bain gold for the Grizzlies Mike Krasinski Tobias Harris gold for the 76ers and James Robinson And Kyrie Irving purple for the Nets Sean O'Leary Jade McDaniels for the Timberwolves PJ McNeely John Merant Grizzlies Mike Krasinski And LeBron James My House Very nice Lakers Miles Kaepern John Collins gold for the Hawks Matt McLaughlin Isaac Acoro for the Cavaliers and Mark Haraki And Gordon Hayward to 99 for the Hornets Mike Krasinski Sadiq Bay for the Pistons Joe Christian Patrick Williams for the Bulls Eric Ainge purple Kenyan Martin Jr purple for the Rockets And Anthony Lu Tyrese Halliburton for the Kings Chad Da Tyrell Terry to 99 for the Mavericks Byung Hyun-In and Precious Ashua for the Heat David Wong Jade McDaniels gold for the Timberwolves PJ McNeely Peyton Pritchard for the Celtics Aaron Whittington Zion for the Pelicans Lance Mishihira And another My House LeBron James Very nice Lakers again Miles Kaepern And RJ Hampton for the Magic and Joe Christian This one's obviously pretty well misprinted You can see the gold the silver in the My House here The silver in the My House here just a heads up As notice that you can see the name as well See how it's under the white that one's on the white But hey luckily you got two of them Isaiah Stewart gold for the Pistons And Joe Christian Anthony Edwards nice one for the Timberwolves PJ McNeely Kyrie for the Nets gold Sean O'Leary And Damian Lillard green My House to 25 for the Timberwolves Sorry for the Blazers David Wong Obi-Toppin for the Knicks Eric Ainge And Steph Curry stargazing for the Warriors and Miles Kaepern Tyrese Halliburton for the Kings Chad Da He's signing I think he said Sunday I think that's what he said He said it in the chat Oh Thursday he started signing on Thursday Yannis zero gravity for the Bucks Aaron Whittington Anthony Edwards purple for the Timberwolves PJ McNeely good night guys see ya LeBron for the Lakers and Miles Kaepern Yeah, see you guys have fun Kenyan Martin Jr. for the Rockets gold That is Anthony Lu James Weissman for the Warriors Miles Kaepern Jamal Murray gold for the Nuggets PJ McNeely Aaron Naismith gold for the Celtics and Aaron Whittington Chris Middleton gold for the Bucks Aaron Whittington Zion for the Pelicans Lance Michihira And Joella Embiid tribute rated rookie 76ers James Robinson Jaden McDaniels for the Timberwolves And PJ McNeely and rated rookie auto Jalen Harris for the Raptors Mike Tower Cassius Winston purple for the Wizards James Robinson I think he said time He's signing for um he's specifically signing for the VIP Group like uh the uh as like a free signing for the VIP tickets at the National So I don't I don't know if he'll be up on the main stage or a separate side stage LeBron James for the Lakers Miles Kaepern Ann Yannis for the Bucks Aaron Whittington Sabin Lee for the Pistons Joe Christian Russell Westbrook for the Wizards James Robinson Purple Desmond Bain for the Grizzlies and Mike Grzinski Patrick Williams for the Bulls and Eric Ainge Tyrese Maxie Gold for the 76ers and James Robinson and Anthony Edwards for the Timberwolves and PJ McNeely Zach Levine Gold for the Bulls Eric Ainge Last box good luck everybody Sadiq Bay auto for the Pistons Nice one there for Joe Christian Denny Avdija Gold for the Wizards James Robinson Desmond Bain again for the Grizzlies And Mike Grzinski Zion for the Pelicans Lance Mishihira and Zach Levine Gold for the Bulls Eric Ainge Patrick William also for the Bulls Eric Ainge and Anthony Edwards for the Timberwolves PJ McNeely Emmanuel Quickly Purple for the Knicks Eric Ainge And Paul George Rated Rookie Tribute for the Pacers Aaron Whittington And Obi Toppin for the Knicks to finish it off and Eric Ainge There you go guys that's the break now it's time to give away that extra box So if you had two or more teams in this break you get entered to win So let's pop back over here to our randomizer So from Matt down to James we're going to copy the customer list over to a secondary sheet And alphabetize it So Aaron with three spots one gets you get one entry We'll use the one that you actually won last spot in that one Anthony thanks for getting in Byung Hyun in thanks for getting in and Chad as well David you get an entry Eric You've got one James you've got one Joe Lance Mark thanks for getting in Matt thanks for getting in Michael you get one Mike you've got three entries we'll do the one you won Or you get one entry three spots total Mike tower thanks for getting in Miles you get one entry PJ and Sean So from Aaron down to Sean You've got 11 entries total name on top after Two and a five seven times gets in or gets the the box Seventh and final time miles keeping You just won yourself a sealed box Ship to you Seven times on the randomizer Seven times on the dice Miles on top and there you go guys that was 2020-2021 Penini clearly Don Russ basketball 12 box Hobby case break pick your team number six from jaspyscasebreaks.com I'm Sean jaspyscasebreaks.com. Thanks for hanging out. We'll see you next time