individual ised issues present however the court with on to say that because common issues were present under rule twenty three a namely because the amended complaint allege that these misrepresentations and actions were classes in this case the five b two classes that religion the reply group are categorically manifestly in every other way possible that they cannot be certified as a matter of law under this court precedence policy that favors or trivial the only thing standing in the way of arbitration of these claims are these spurious class an allegation and so we suggest that that's another reason to go ahead and decide put all the pieces of this case to gallop not up that don't we have her on the whole case and the reason why i say that it's because you said the only thing standing in the way is are these spurious class action allegations and still we then go back to the of any possible way to certify these b two classes as a matter of law right now there is no light there is there is an art to certify these classes in and let me turn if i may quickly and as to why classes which really was a tacit recognition that the original class was under b three had no hope moreover in the brief that the appellee filed in this court mr donaldson effectively effectively admitted that he didn't have a leg to stand on with respect to the merits of the motion he wrote should this court proceed so far as to consider that novel it comes motions to strike on the merits the most unlikely will have lost this appeal but beyond that you're on  based on the type reduced decision from the u s supreme court and lost the lottery believes it's inevitable you can't have a client it's more over these classes require as a as a matter of law based on how they're plated they w extensive individualized includes and that's fighting for two different reasons st on the ascertained ability to issue a class has to be asked for tainio and what what are some of the individual determinations that you be five claim allege the misrepresentations training for example was the trading excessive you'd have to analyze that in light of each individual customers invest were the trades on opera that's another basis for tenby liability that requires a particular individual inquiry into whether there was authorization for every single transaction in these various customers accounts so those are just for some of the individuals to issues but i'll finish where i started and that is a lot of the claims are based on misrepresentations or all misrepresentations and and this course will carry decision in countless other decisions those that's another issue and in here this court has as issued at least four decisions all of which members of this panel were on including most recently your opinion in paris last year that denied relationship and again you're going to have to have individual eyes inquiries to determine whether they even belong in the class in the st place were they subjected to these misrepresentations they rely on them and so forth and then you're going to have individualized inquiries into with the merits of the be two classes one to our request for an injunction four of these five classes don't even ask for an injunction they don't ask for an injunction they just dumped the fit into class asks for an injunction is no longer with the company and that's a matter of record based on plaintiff's papers so they're asked they're not asking for injunctions and even if they were the the the perpetrator alleged is is along with the company classes were added in the paper we treated that as effectively an amendment as also just as permissible but really it's a distinction without a difference your honor because the the problems i'm siding to you other than the district court invented a new rule for the it miltie admittedly a rule that has required that has acquired some favor in other circuits and that is that whenever is an appeal is filed from a de it's either in person or on the phone that's one of the living breathing people here the other living groups and breathing person is marked sexy scene was a broker dealer employed by ameriprise and an investment and don't trade on margin i've never traded on a margin i can't afford a stock i don't want to buy for two years to be obeyed the latter instruction but then departed from it and began trading  potential individualized misrepresentations to all the presumably potential other inventory pickers who are victims of this i don't see how the common questions predominate over the individual questions here well for from our perspective and it may not be a satisfactory explanation of the core from our perspective commonality is satisfied by the fact that a man of this kind of character was intrusted with client funds and given the authority to trade and deal and liquidate client assets and  it when clearly he was demonstrably qualified to do it and those foreign associates and having been required to pay nearly thirty thousand dollars to his clients in compensation for monies that he a life savings of people like that can i interrupt you to ask you simply this sounds like a case for arbitration why isn't this  not appropriate for arbitration a couple of reasons one is missouri law control and missouri law said that this arbitration agreement cannot be enforced why because it's got to be really one sided unilateral in here when they retain the right don't they have to give notice and then a change can't be made at least not your honor that's not actually what it sa notice need be given in advance but declares that since the unilateral right was retained to amend the agreement that that was enough to deprive the agreement of you to melody and of consideration at least that's the way