candid with you it looks to me like you have a bunch of state law claims i'm with you thrown on to very questionable federal claims rico which appears to be something at least you know los angeles people filing every complaint and they're not very good claims i'm going to dismiss them and i'm going to dismiss the whole of a geisha in as because of the breast of it supplemental and it's being taken care of in state court for first of all but respectfully disagree with you that  lisa you know you really think in this case you honestly think that these employees of the water district are racketeers i mean that very much troubles me your complaint you've you have you have a wedge that these employees the water district acting pursuant to existing state law which may turn out to be invalid are having gauged in acts of racketeering you really want to stand here and defend that well the facts are the facts and the facts  the millions of people have because of what look you may have a wonderful state law claim they may have collected too much money and they may be entitled to refunds you have labeled these civil servants as racket eers i find that offensive it's not in front of me right now so if you want to defend it go right ahead but i don't i think i think a district judge looking at this could well say there's no racketeering claim here and  there's no nine hundred eighty three claim here now the judge didn't do that here the judge was kinder to you he merely said let's wait till a state action is over and then i'll take a look at these federal claims so my question is what do you want to say you want to give it back to him and let him is a practice is going on for one hundred years i understand is now challenge under a fairly recent constitutional amendment but but you're claiming that that is somehow a shocked the conscience believe so i can you cite i case for that proposition is there any rate taking or taxing case that violates a substantive due process of taking property from people when wouldn't be taken if they were going to be if they were going to be transferred to the city but your claim has your fourteenth amendment claim can't relate to the transfer well i think it's they don't have a property right to pretty prevent the use of the funds once they're taken your property right argument has to be that they have a fourteenth amendment right to the funds not being taken doesn't it to keep their money you know you have to keep their might to take their money and keep it ok so what tell me tell me  excessive rates to the public for a product by the government is in violation of the fourteenth amendment it becomes because it violates the california constitution that says that's a state law claim i'm well before you sit down and you can answer this question when you get back up if you want and if you are california constitutional claim fails which is to say if a court finds that what they're doing is perfectly legal under california law good morning ben chapman from the los angeles city attorney's office and they raise the mike there a little bit i would like to just first address real quick your point about the rico claims i mean it's well what i might suggest you don't use a bunch your proof that the california constitution was violated by them by the practice of challenge absolutely your honor so article thirteen c the cost of california constitution which was added in two thousand and ten by proposition twenty six now defines a tax in state of california as any levy charge or exaction initiated by local government so the only way you guys were directly on this there's nothing illegal about transferring money to part city departments transfer money every day and every so well but that's not that's not really not that we're not looking at the legality of the practice my question is really different if if a court rules in your favor do all the rest of the plaintiffs claims go away absolutely ok and and you favor on the constitutional issue correct if a court rules against you on the constitutional issue and for the moment put aside which court whether it's a superior court the california supreme court then  constitutional claims would proceed they might be rejected but they would proceed with a not they may proceed but i mean they they would have no merit ok right but that's not going to be that is not the issue the colorado river doctrine seems to say you should only stay a case when the state court proceedings will make the federal proceedings unnecessary and so if i had a hypothetical world in which the class  superior court action winds on its constitutional claims while there remain work to be done in the federal court which is to say the evaluation of of of the plaintiffs in this case is federal claims honor remember these are class actions so if they proceed in state court and they are effective in state court or they lose in state quickly federal claims are not before the state court correct there are no rico or ninety three claims in the state action assert those claims and so my problem with the judge's colorado river water is that we set we tell judges you should only issue a colorado river ascension order when when once the state case is done your case will be done to and at least there's a hypothetical set of circumstances here under which the class prevails in the state case where the judge will have more work the other claims will still remain in this case  on the merits so why does colorado river that's a long lead and i know what is called a lot of river applied to that set of facts because as as courts have held including the ninth circuit there does not need to be identical ness of claims every claim does not have to be the same the issue is whether the core claim is the same and in this case the underlying claim here is whether the electric rates violate article thirteen c of the constitution as we've noted in a cache and i want to get to that and in other cases we cited in our brief the claims and the parties do not need to be identical and that of course makes sense in the class action context otherwise what you're going to have happen your honor is you're going to have state court class actions that exist and then because for whatever plaintiff or more likely a plaintiff's lawyer is unhappy with that case or they want to get themselves in the mix then they're just going to move to federal court they're going to file a federal class action and they're going to tack on a rico claim for a another guy fact you violated the state constitution you've also violated the fed you've also violated federal law because no court has yet adjudicated that issue if that were true and you lose on the state constitution of claims there's a lot of work for the federal judge to do after the state action is over and well again what i would get at is one of the factors is again focuses on whether state law supplies the issue there are but there are eight or nine factors that we talk about but don't we say the critical issue may be the determinative factor is whether or not the state court whether or not the final judgment in the state court proceeding will render the federal action unnecessary as opposed to just inform it well i again i think in this case you've already raised the exact is it that it will make it on well i don't know i mean i can't miss you if you had a rough time about it but it may turn out because we it's not our job to look at these claims may turn out these are wonderful federal claims and then the district judge will look at them and say my gosh you you're right there's a substantive due process violation here or these folks have engaged in racketeering so it may be so but that's a  and they can file them in the pending class action because that class action is being managed by someone else they could file a class action it would then be related just like the other cases there's a multiple class actions not just one they were there were multiple that were filed then they relate were related before a single judge if then other class actions fall it would be related just the same they could move to intervene or they can move to intervene right or if there's a settlement and it's not in the record but this past monday a settlement  was reached between the parties and it has now been filed for point in their life why aren't they entitled to style this claim as they say as they deem appropriate yes they could do other things but why as the price of getting into federal court and staying there do they have to create a a group of claims that you think they should of but they don't want to and that they're the masters of their complaint what why do they have to do it a certain way in order to stay in federal court i don't know if they can stay in federal court all i'm suggesting is that let's let a state court judge decide a fundamental slate court for purposes of colorado river abstention there's no real distinction between a stay and a dismissal of the black letter law that is pretty clear right i believe so i believe the court could have dismissed moment i'll give but most i don't have the opportunity to dress it if that's true why are we worried then about a stay pending the end of the state court litigation and that's all the judge did if both sides can agree that the state court worrying about these very difficult colorado river issues and the merits of claims that sarah if in fact both sides can let us know that the that the state court proceeding for which this is  didn't anybody advise the courts of the sort that apologies are that's a big deal yeah not pause or it just happened very quickly it just happened this week but but more importantly to me should we just delays submission of this case to see what actions as process has taken a long time in that scenario your honor and again i've cited cases in my brief where courts have a where courts have issued colorado river states pending class action settlements and state court and the answer is because the plaintiffs at that point as as judge noted they can intervene or they can object in the settlement but you look and i don't blame anybody for not telling us but it's an important fact it's one thing for a federal judge to say as i think your opponents briefs a fairly accurately we have to wait years we don't know what's going to happen in the state court litigation we don't know what issues it's going to resolve we don't but if you're telling us that it's preliminarily resolved and we'll know at some point in time relatively soon what it does then it seems to me we might well say to the district judge ok now that you know that you know you never you know that's happened can you make your stay only until this class action settlement is approved can you make yours you know there's all sorts of things that might occur to us if we have some accurate information about the status of the state court action i apologize or well what i'm guessing is should we were meant to this district judge and ask both of you to bring that fact his attention and see what he wants to  issue the extra information you've given us now is that a judgment on these issues in the federal court might conflict with a pending judgment in a state court as opposed to a pending lawsuit and that's i don't i'm sure the significance that information that it strikes me as something i would take into account if i were a district judge there possibly are yes and if we vacate submission to see what happens in the state court settlement that in effect continues to stay exactly your honor and that's why at the end of the day you i think you end up in the same place which is the state court case is going to have to be resolved whether that is through the final settlement or whether the court rejects a settlement then the case goes forward but either way once that state court case is resolved then you're back then perhaps if they want to move forward i don't even know they may be happy with the settlement and accept it or they're going to have to opt out and then i suppose they're going to have a single claim on behalf of one person or three people meet me ask a russian it's me ask a question that i think i know the answer to but i'm not positive all the class members in the state action or also question members in the federal election yes again the significance of this potential settlement for the colorado river and else isn't the district court in the best position to assess all the variables that you that you've talked about how how long this is going to take exact literal fact that the settlement was filed but they were aware there was an all day mediation that was disclosed but i think there their claim and it's i think it's a reasonable one is look you can't stay as indefinitely because the state litigation has been going on forever and for all we know it will continue to take forever now we haven't had a fact that is pertinent to that argument i agree with you to the extent i disagree that there is that this was always in going to be some sort of indefinite stay at but to your point yes i agree with you that we certainly know at this point again approving assuming the court approves the settlement which i cannot guarantee but i certainly believe it should then yes you're correct that there is a finite period that this would and  because first of all the claims are not the same the claims are different as to time and as to the type of damages saw it claims in the federal case go back to twenty twelve  in the us date case because of the judgement the order the state courts judge in on the pleadings order the statute of limitations in employees and their signs etc in return for whatever they get and so and since all those members and since your classes coincide won't your clients have it unless they opt out of the state court settlement have released their and i don't know if we don't know this but i'm just as i haven't seen anything you know is that that is a case that case is based on equitable concerns that the prevalence to a twenty three b two where there is no that there is no not much in the way of notice of let's assume it ends up being a binding settlement and every settlement i've ever seen as a both as a lawyer and as a judge includes a release and so if if the if the plaintiffs in that case end up or leasing their claims and my guess my guess is it's a very broad police but i don't know then what's left in your case well if our case is not actually the case obviously but that there are people represented in that case who are also the same people you purport you know you haven't gotten classification yet but they're they're the people you would like to represent if they make a reasoned decision in the case before  drop all their claims against the water district well what do you left with a good question is whether it would be a reasoned relief and i don't think it would be and the the other thing too is that one of the things that the district court basically said was that you know he was listening to the fact that you'd get a decision in the state court as to the constitutionality of proposition twenty six applied to the right so he  well on remand say ok i don't need to stay this litigation anymore to wait for a decision but i need to stay this litigation to see whether everybody in this class has already settled their claims well i don't think that  if in fact somebody forget whom for a second says your state constitutional claims lack married with the words these are the rates and the transfer were perfectly ok don't all your other claims fail they may but that well i'm not i'm not going to happen i don't know i just had a that's why it's a hypothetical i need to know the your view on this don't all your other claims fail are no your other claims dependent i'm showing that what happened but it was a constitutional yes it may be true but what not and i'm not asking with it may be true i mean and you may have a it may be of complete irrelevance i just want to know your position on it are you  not the question i asked and i mean nothing in that case it was over have any bearing i mean i understand that it's not nothing i ask give you fifteen minutes to think about this question so i really need your rants actually the defendant answered it so they do you agree with their answer no i do not so you think that if let's assume this goes back to the district court and the court says because it's a matter of law on summary judgment i reject your state constitutional claim you claims whether or not our claims fell as a result no i'm not forget any other action let's assume this is the only action in the world put aside the stay this is if you file this case there's no other case pending the judge to pick this case and he says as a matter of summary judgment i reject your state constitutional claims of course you would appeal that my question is would he also therefore follow that that same judge would reject all the rest of your claims i can't speculate as well as district court judge would do so and you have no you have no position on whether or not there's any independent basis for the rest of your claims except to state constitutional violation if course there's a ninety three claim of course there's a rico claim let's assume that the judge in this case after due consideration says what they did was perfectly constitutional under the state constitution they didn't violate the state constitution either in the rates that they charge or by the transfer to any of the rest of your claims then survive acknowledge that potentially the those developments could be helpful to you before the district court in arguing that the state should be lifted if it's going to if there is a real likelihood of a settlement which would not resolve the legal issues that you've raised and it may take a very long time nevertheless to work it out i mean you would have some strong arguments as to why that state should be lifted there's no there's no promise of a state court deciding the state constitution which she that you've raised it may take a long time for that settlement process to work its way out so you could you'd have good arguments would you not as to why the state should be lifted so isn't this the other way is judge her which is indicated the releases could be very problematic for you but this is a significant development that could have a significant effect on the appropriate of the states so why should we send it back to the district court to assess its ruling in light of what we've learned about the act litigation well i think first of all even though you learned about it from