erroneous interpretation of law or abused discretion so normally it would be quite high but i contend your honor that in this case the factors contend for an extension of the time under  mention below and check in on the record is the good faith of the movement there's been no declaration that movements were in bad faith or trying to do the strategically they did she did not address the lack of prejudice to the non there's nothing in the record below that show that letting these few individuals opt out would affect the case in any way or the settlement decision there was one hundred fifty million dollars nine hundred thousand plaintiffs twelve hundred opted out there's no declaration saying that if these seven people opt out it would be the case or be outside the amount of money they thought they would have to pay and opt out on the part of the court i understand that the court didn't explicitly address those issues well the as you know under the pioneer test you look at the four factors you address the four factors and while none controlling in and of themselves and there's no formula you are the court is required to address them our contention is the court didn't address all the factors that would have mitigated towards allowing it and the one factor that she did address and i'll go to that right now which is it wasn't so much the delay in filing the opt out notice she said in her opinion that if the movements had filed earlier she would have probably found excusable neglect for the whole thing about some of them didn't get the notice a couple more disabled confused she seemed to focus on the phase after they knew their delay in being able to find a lawyer to file the opt out there was a nine month delay and the reason the only reason given was that they couldn't find a california lawyer and she didn't find out that yet that was the only factor that she addressed and she the discussion on that again the issue wasn't that the plaintiffs did not try to find a lawyer in that time the issue they were unable to and that's a distinction there seemed to be implicit in her reasoning that the plane just had the money and the opportunity to get someone to take on their case and that with not in the record with the record stated and it's very brief in the record but there's nothing disputing it that multiple counsel were approached to file the motion but they were unable to get them now that's not surprising if you look at the declarations of the movement they are in bankruptcy they have bad credit they wouldn't be a client of h f c's kind of lending program if they had the money to hire a lawyer there and a different state and getting someone to take on the case was difficult according to the record and there's nothing disputing that it was only when they were able to find a lawyer who was admitted to practice the northern district who was actually in the bellingham area that they were able to get someone to agree so it's a different situation then a lawyer simply or client sitting on a case and not doing anything it's a question penalize ingham once for falling into predatory lending and again for not being able to pay for a lawyer i agree that a lot of the clients you're going to see sophisticated business folks like each se they find out they made a mistake they can have something filed right away in this case were on the record and the only record is that they made efforts to do so but they didn't have the ability to persuade someone to do it and it doesn't go into all the details of why or not but it was within the one year  contemplated in efforts to be sixty and there's no showing of prejudice i think it would be a different case if h s t would show although there was a prejudice well there were and there was no prejudice in the in the court it's going to take as long as it takes to decide one of these motions there are over forty filed my understanding is they've all been resolved some before some after these clients so there's no extra time in the court they just see hasn't had to do any extra time to do it there's no showing in the record and in fact h c asked to consolidate these cases and then get extensions on the breeze that resulted in a six month delay from the time their first brief was due until their last brief not because they did anything wrong and they acted in good  mistake i knew about the deadline i worked i gave all information to the attorney has many deadlines and gestures and claims filing deadline or a statute of limitations or in this case an opt out deadline the attorney represents  client and if the deadline is missed the other party is still entitle to the benefit of that deadline and the recourse is really a matter between the attorney and the client so you're suggesting that cirillo might have a malpractise action against the lawyer is that your point perhaps your honor perhaps i just can't get her legal advice but it's not what's what's wrong with adding one more opt out there are twelve hundred out there and i gather there's a very substantial sum which has not yet been fully allocated is that correct well your honor the the settlement had a financial component it had an injector believe component it required establishing of certain types of programs that provided economic consideration in the form of foreclosure avoidance which is a real real benefit and the issue here is not whether these these appellants are entitle to the benefits of the settlement they're entitled to all the benefits of those those programs the issue here is i'm not part of the settlement the opt out those from the i got the i was not fact filed their opt out notices within the time of persons who filed opt out notices within the time many of them fi which have been defended across the country some of them settled some of them you know i know of one that went to verdict for a substantial amount and so the company is but there is a fund is there not that is available for people in that category but it's not a fund it's those people who opted out they have lawsuits against the company and if the company it's not a separate fund it's like any other lawsuit if someone slipped  fell on their doorstep and sued them tomorrow it's where did i get the impression there was some sort of either limiter allocation with respect to those maybe maybe i know it well there are some of the programs some of the particular programs you allowing one in or two and i think the court needs to maintain context here that there were a great deal of requests to opt out late that were filed after the deadline and the district court considered every one of those very carefully weighed the evidence weighed the excuse that was given weight the time delay between the notice and when the request after it was filed and she had validate all the factors and she made some judgments and so the question is is it appropriate for this court to be upsetting those reasonable judgments because the standard under r sixty it's not that you have a year after judgments entered to file or quest for relief judgment is a juror is a jurisdictionally significant out and to reopen that judgment which is what a la is because the class judgment defines who is bound by the judgment and who is not bound by the judgment to reopen that judgment under rule sixty that rule specifically says the application needs to be made within a reasonable time and after a year it is absolutely barred and the zapper are the claimants that are before the court in this case yet are these two combined curiousness still eligible to participate in the settlement the record they put in the record but the way it works is that if you have a default or something like that you can access the fund to help you pay the default so basically put a bunch of money in a fund for people who get in trouble the money still goes back to  the record in this place as according to my clients they get no benefit of the settlement as far as in mind they're not getting paid if they submit anything because they're not necessarily in that situation where you just heard hosing coun and yeah what i'm saying is they get the benefit of eligibility to participate in the program but it will not result in a check or money coming to them is what i'm saying it's not just wanted to be it's not that type of case so they according in their year the council's correct you have up to one year but only if you can show that any delay in filing is for good cause in this case as soon as the client's found out from h s t that there was a class action and it missed the deadline when they went counsel for each of c contacted me i told them immediately they didn't think they were in the class action i followed up with a letter promptly now the fourth pioneer factor has to do with what was the reason for not i was not admitted and i was not part of that case they did not have the ability even though several tries to get someone that is the part where she missed if they'd had control and had delayed she's exactly right because they didn't it should be reversed thank you thank you counsel the case just argued will be submitted for decision and we will hear argument in america vs the color of your life insurance