plus two thousand dollars in fees and costs conditioned upon a confidential settlement agreement that was subsequently rejected and then the plaintiff won a trial a one thousand dollars and statutory damages was entitled to the entirety of the fees and costs as permitted by the by the template was used in preparing right what there was there were some exhibits by the defendant in the case where there were other other complaints that were similar but if you actually look at the complaint in question and in fact there  nor point seven hours for drafting and review of the complaint but the for the totality of the work done before the issuance of the rule sixty eight dollars now what actually interesting is in the door in case just in the water ten dollars hours for all the work that was don three it's absolutely abundantly clear that the cost of the fees are treated differently and in fact the u s supreme court in dealing with the cost and fees in the fees differently under the f t c ph so when you look at the hay with analysis hayworth is all about reasonableness there is no bright line rule that you stop the analysis of what reasonable fees were on the date of the service of the rule sixty eight you have to look at the facts of this case here reviewing of the documents which included reviewing documents in the in the state court case upon track to issue at the heart of the case and just concentrate on the drafting in the review there's no explanation with specificity under merino of why those all of the cases which were pre approved suddenly just evaporated there's no explanation for that and i think what's also interesting is that the reconsideration was only entertained because this record stated that that is almost identical to the case they filed two months before and we've attached the other complaint that they felt too much before two months before in our supplemental nation of the record and while there are some did have the previous complaint was filed by those filed two dollars months before and was able to compare the two complaints the trial and the trial court had the all the underlying state court documents that were litigated on summary judgment so no evidence i would use or the complaint evidence other than one of them other than the other than the complaint being evidence and the  state court case that were filed with the district court that is that's what the court had to can have to consider but the court is supposed to use its reasoning logic and experience in assessing what was reasonable in preparing that complaint we cite  what is reasonable under solomon solomon and hayworth were a similar rule sixty eight dollars offer as compared to this one the district court has the discretion to determine and there's the an be experts on this they would have they would have done the research when they were doing the previous complaints eight dollars the district court was within its discretion find a point six was was excessive the rule sixty eight offer was serve the day before the motion business was filed but as also serve the e mail and fax so they had it before they had time to do the analysis they ended up amending their complaint anyway so how much more research could have been done if they had to amend the complaint in the state court action all of this doesn't happen in a bubble it happens and in context and the context was that they did most of this work in the state court action they're not allowed to bring it over and duplicated here they learned of these facts in the course of the state court representation there's no there's no case law saying that that what they've learned in the stake or representation carries over to preparing the complaint in this case they got the notice of her out of they saw that there was an issue and the district court had an obligation to to evaluate the attorneys fees in light of the settlement offers i mean we tried to make we tried to make us all an offer at the onset of the case i mean given what they learned in the state court action i mean it's it's it's you can't just say and what they're trying to say is because we did this work in the state court action we should be able to cover those fees in the federal election that's not what they're entitled to do i mean this is the kind of as soon as they got the real sixty eight offer they added additional attorneys to to this case they ratcheted up the league ation this was exactly what the court howorth was urged people to be cautious of and this trial judge had found two hours was a reasonable time result would be different right it was within its discretion yes but the court would still have to do the analysis of where the district court properly considered councils failure to assess the feasibility of a quick quick settlement in the number of hours they expended i mean as this court stated in the last appeal this was this was unintentional africa suffered no damages they lost on the f t c p a complaint which the this which the district court was entitled to take into consideration anyway in awarding attorney's fees so all of this comes into play that the board was reasonable and the distinguish that now because the analysis now focused on the confidentiality clause and valuing a confidentiality clause in this case they're all sixty eight offer was more like honest in my rebuttal i'd like to ask a rhetorical question what kind of precedent with the court be setting if the from the lower court ruling when you look at the context of what took place before the issuance of the rule sixty eight as i mentioned before i think we should look at what happened  the pendency of the sixty eight but let's just take what was actually analyzed there was an intake there was review of documents there were there was a review with pumice there was a rule eleven investigation they were mandated to do it under the rules of civil procedure there was a drafting of the complaint there was a review of the complaint and there was a discussion of the complaint with the client the filing of the complaint in the service of the complaint is it reasonable to expect attorneys to do that in forty one minutes because it's a slippery slope to malpractise if that if if that's what the decision is going to be because at that the message that's being sent at that point is you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't because if you follow that structure we're going to be in front of the court responding to court of why we haven't complied with rule eleven and if you do your job properly you're going to be in front of the court no you're not going to get paid for that that's not a good precedent to say set your arms and so in running out of my time your honor i respectfully request that the