should be overturned for to read first the district court err in holding the plaintiffs do not satisfy the permissive standard for typicality they were subject to claim funi second the district conduct namely the defense in this case adopted a class wide policy accounting for foreign streaming revenues also on the basis of the revenues  so why isn't that an application of standards rather than a legal principle because the court didn't allow us to conduct the discovery necessary six scenarios resulting in a claim of the same nature as other qualifiers does not the outies in this instance the court recognize that the plaintiffs are bringing the same cause of action for breach of contract fraud violation of the business code average of the five hundred that they were subject to the same course of conduct what the district court said was that it was a nine typicality because they were subject  in the terms of the implied contract because the implied contract arises of the identical course of dealing that arises from the representation that were made on class wide common form royalty statements which indicated that they the royalty payments to these individuals were on the basis of one hundred percent of fifty percent of one hundred percent of gross receipts there was no  focus is primarily on the defendant conduct if there is a common course of conduct a common course of dealing that applies to all members as there is here the to pick out he should be satisfied unless there's something truly unique and the end and the evidence in this case shows that it is not a unique analysis and i had the evidence of that the way the defendant warner all three of these categories that we set forth and it did that because it would determine that the rights and obligations of all three of these categories including the plaintiff category were subject to claim of the same nature as other doesn't that says bessel we're talking about deferring factual scenarios resulting in the same claim that the claim is the same for all the the plaintiffs and also members and it's important to point out series of injuries is not defeat typicality as a matter of law and that's what we're talking about here is the difference in theory of injury or the damages that were incurred versus someone that is recouped versus underexposed there's also the if the quad is subject to a fetal similarity rather than a similarity that issue is appropriate for class adjudication whether whether the injury qualifies self chosen by warner brothers seven days before the concert occasioned motion we didn't have time to analyze them the other issue there was but i mean i think it nobody disputes that you know there are these three different kinds of contracts  you have the kind that doesn't have an express royalty provision so what was more like you learn from discovery that would that would change the analysis of whether you could be typical of the group of that's ninety one percent of the class members were on recruits and seventy seven percent of the class members failing to subcategories three with no expressed contractual provision with the court to ask for further continuance to ask for additional discovery which they didn't do well they say in their class certification motion that they thought ruling on class search should be deferred pending discovery and relates wouldn't satisfy could could cause standard if you took that you know and the and the comment in a declaration that was with the movie and stuck it in a motion it would not satisfy will sixteen and a court would be well within well your honor we look at the one hundred contracts and we can't find any in here that are like heart contract always suspect that maybe the defendant is withholding some water contract the court could have considered that assertion you could have presented no argued it and ruled on it but since they didn't equipped and right have a reasonable expectation to become recouped in the future they are just like they are in our view a subset within contracts that are silent there are also a subset within people who are under coop and again there's no amount of discovery that's going to fix that issue for them and there wouldn't be a class of people who will never be older the whole purpose of this case was to say that we should be paying people royalties but it's brought by a person who will circuit decision and i go there which was followed by a subsequent th circuit decision as well holding that nominal damages would not be available in this circumstance and so what a court the court appropriately consider is it fair that the claims of an entire class including people who are fully recouped and people have an expectation of being recouped should rise or fall with someone who undisputedly will never become a clue and is it appropriate for a class of people whose contracts contain a variety of terms that would give them different and stronger and better claims to have their claims rise and fall based on this particular individual who can't show any similarity between their contract and the contract plaintiffs narrowed the class to just people who had california choice of law clauses and the testimony in the cases there's no way to identify who has a california choice of law clause unless you pull each and every contract and read it to look through to determine it would be thousands your honor it's a little bit difficult because again you'd have to then narrow it down to those artists who had music that's been streamed digitally in a foreign country could be a single page to dozens of pages to pages long and so again by covering different different era and different labels we're able to provide what we believe was a that we took it upon ourselves they'd asked for every contract that we'd ever enter them with anyone and we objected that would have been an incredibly enormous burden to produce the volume of documents and that's why we came tried to argue that it was per se unlawful and that was enough to establish typicality received with the class and this court determined no you couldn't answer the question without looking at the facts and same situation here you can't answer the question of whether or not of were found not triple typical because they were had superior bargaining power yet not that they were somehow unique just that they had more bargaining power that many class members and that could determine whether they had any damages at all fine of art initial motion for class certification we filed a motion seeking additional discovery and indicating that the court's order was improper in response to that motion the jo are not representative and typically when we do accept a sample we negotiate with the it's not just self selected and they put something out there this is not the proper way to conduct to conduct a proper analysis and as case i see my time was running out thank you count the case just argued submitted and we appreciate interesting and helpful arguments