there were twice a law firm who was also one of the california counsel contacted us to see our cooperation and mitigating with them the very things claims i provided to them the complaint which they filed in california which was eventually can solve it with the case that mr donaldson was lead counsel and with that trigger at least some sort of co counsel relationship or at least you know you may be counsel to the other counsel which might suggest that you could build them directly for an appropriate fees i've never thought about that i will tell you why i think we were in effect class counsel in this case have named counsel look at the time this case was filed you have plenty of opportunity to make an appearance prior to the settlement and it never happened i may never have filed the notice but i appeared on behalf of the plaintiffs in california at a deposition in kentucky as a result of the court efforts to advance discovery against me and i was the only one there for the plaintiffs here in california and i took  e counsel and he made it known that i would not that they were going to pay a sunny thanks mark clients wanted us to get paid the same lawyer presented a position to me was i willing to for the rest of my career you know i'll remember that but i thought what i did was right and the fact of matter is general electric knew i was there general electric encouraged my support here let me start first with the the issue of standing since it was the first issue that was raised and well it is laid out in our brief and i'm not going to spend much time on it i think the notion that somehow this court has already resolve  years ago in marshall the holiday magic really overstates the holding of the case i think the question is fairly joined by the supreme court's decision in government and they were very careful to limit that to the one class actions and for good reasons opposed to the argument you heard today you will see the judge patel went carefully through all of the factors relevant to the summit she queried the warriors for the jackers on several occasions as to what they thought was a fair settlement they're coming here claiming that this one is unfair what do they think is fair and they couldn't answer the question they were asked several times and in fact with respect to the new york decision which again they claim judge patel was just so in the first instance we talk about what is a matter of record and that's put before and that's clearly not just in what you know but you must have some sense about what he's talking about when he talks specifically makes the allegation that was there was misinformation communicating but the number of spelling flame of cinema and so forth g e made certain representations i was not in a position to do that i had no information to make any sort of representations of what work i was able to do was simply read the decision and see what the court said as to what one would have to prove in order to be a participant in the new york actually it was a far more difficult burden of proof and a far more limited class of people that are in place by the class understand the matters that have been submitted subsequently the number is larger it's still far smaller than the one in the case here but i don't call that misinformation i call that people reading the station and telling the judge what they think ma numbers until the actual process occurred now lastly i want to point out about new york i mean what we have in this case is we have a clean people who bought a dishwasher for two hundred twenty nine dollars that's what cost what did they pay for it after the rebate they paid one hundred fifty four dollars for it and they gave up the old machine parts half of that they got twenty dollars or fifty depending on whether you look at it from the cash standpoint question then becomes under restitution theory are they entitled to more i look carefully at the law i frankly just agree with what the new york court did i think it's great if you can get there but i don't think it's something that could have been a  twenty nine dollars in value and you parted with one hundred twenty five dollars now you have you also part with all machine it only cost twenty dollars to buy it new is it worth one hundred dollars or seventy five dollars after spend there for twelve years motion she laid out in clear detail what she thought the problems with the case worker we took that into account i think that's what was possible words are supposed to do not what i think we did in this case  are subject to the type of aggregation rules that apply to class actions and in fact there were two cases down in the northern district of california where this was brought up in which the same issue was framed in the courts held there was jurisdiction you could look claim and i think at the end of the day you know your honor may well be right we may lose that claim i understand that but the real test is whether it's frivolous and i must admit i don't believe that it's in any way for not a part of this court's opinion i reckon i really recognize that but nevertheless it was certainly a key issue because that's what they moved to dismiss our judge work rejected the argument came up here and this like start off and response some of these questions about the new york case it was a summary proceeding before the trial court in new york it was brought by the attorney general in new york as the summary for stating there was no right across examination there were no discovery there was no was heard about it at the fairness hearing she heard she writes about it from the adjuster's papers she was fully aware of it and nothing's changed since the fairness hearing except for the fact that we didn't win that we are human and we there one thing we did say was that we hoped that the amount would be limited to about two hundred new yorkers and the basis for that was that there was a letter sent out to about fifty five hundred people nationally two hundred of them from new york but for the representations they would have not purchased another dishwasher and as a result only about ten percent of those people that were also even participate as fair to this class where one hundred percent of the ninety thousand people not only didn't have to file any participate his conversations related what were once single telephone call where he called and said i understand that you're not going to pay me and the answer was that's absolutely correct we did not know we were very clear about that we didn't know who was going to come out of the woodwork and asked to participate in terms of the current space we were not just thinking about this reinsurance for we was thinking about all the other lawyers who had filed this these lawsuits none of them deserved any compensation and had contributed anything chords and that's why