are a very very fast question was was judge in line and webber alerted to the fact that mr and mrs lawrence had damages apart from the purchase price of the vehicle including the purchase an installation of the charging station yes your honor they were planning to complain they were art we argued that  to emotion business so let me follow up on that a little bit this is a cassock case right yes ma'am and it was my understanding that from your point of view what what the class members allegedly would have in common is the difference in value between the hybrid model as really operating and the hybrid model as advertised and that and that's roughly pegged it a twenty thousand dollars difference but it seems to me that the charging station seems quite particular to the laurens and so if for some reason savior failed to show that he was the purchaser then i don't know how a twenty seven hundred dollars case leverage is out from an amount of controversy point of view to a cafe decision i don't see any allegation that the other members of the class were buying charging stations and how many of them would have to do so to get up to the five million both the about how this car was paid for was it a check on a bank account was it a jointly held bank account was it i mean we know that there's the sixteen thousand or so from the trade in and about i don't know who that car w titled in i don't know i mean it just seems to me very poorly documented and it matters because i'd agree with you that if that if i buy a car for you and i put the title in your car and then it turns out not to be the car it was advertised to be i've been hurt i paid money and you've been hurt because you have an asset that's of lesser value so i'm fine with the idea of the purchaser or less or being a person sheet he bought this then gets contested and once it gets contested you've got to come forward with something well they can well argue that maybe this is incorrect was that they contested that he owned the car and they came out and said anything out there in the world that would either show yes he really did pay or no he didn't or it was a joint bank account or i mean i just don't know any of those facts will will there contest of his standing in the lower court was five census and they consist of an argument that he wasn't a member of the class he sought to represent and we said wait a minute you're conflating two different issues you're conflating standing and to be county this was a very small issue and a very large set of briefs concerning the typical defense arguments seven or no it was a letter from the dealer and we saw the letter but they didn't was there no where the bank account is some mystery mysterious thing that's all information we have is there was the letter we don't even know what the amount was going to be frankly all right so your position and dition the offer is both incomplete because there are other things that were being sought for example the charging station in the labor in addition that it's a conditional offer in the sense that she would have had to return the car all the cases that we've been to find letter the price of the car was eighty three thousand four hundred seventy five dollars right so i read that to be we'll give you eighty three thousand four hundred seventy five dollars but we would like to have the car back i mean you know that's that's that's  rescission ery we're just going to unwind it give you your money back in the district court said yeah and so if you get the full eighty three for seventy five back you can go buy the cheaper car pocket whatever is left over and you're fine that would work other then the charging station in the labor and other thing and they trade the car and so well that is not a diary for seventy five includes the sixteen that they got for the car and they accepted sixteen thousand dollars in exchange for the accord they said that in exchange record is part of getting a new car well i don't think it's necessarily fair to say they would sell that on the market is open transaction if it's not part of the trade look i we know that the blue book gives you two different prices you know open market versus trade in but i think they're they made that decision when they decided to trade it in and they're going to get the value back they're not going to get the car back to the car for long gone and sold to some bonafide purchaser without notice but that strikes me as fairly weak  e i see i'm not sure why you see promos off her as offering something meaning slowly here for him from what the morn's purported so the the problem really i think still is i guess that it's your position that not only seven accepted offer it's an incomplete off on the other hand we have cases in this court that say if there's really no fundamental dispute between the parties why are we wasting the time of the courts you know i'm thinking maybe the toyotas case or other cases where yes but they were dealing with the executor all along in the process before that we legit complaint way to get started with exhibitor put a deposit the only people with the car he thought of the dealership they didn't close in the car a year later he had problems with the car she took it back to the dealership he dealt with the dealership they couldn't resolve disputes and then he filed suit after he filed suit both as hey he doesn't own the car he doesn't have standing he said we disagree but let's just to balance a standard let's not fight about it is what gets added as a plaintiff they make a motion dismissed with lots of arguments and one small pieces he doesn't have standing and another piece is her claim is moot because the letter just one of whatever only deals with that aspect of the case and that's how we in the people for you so what else is it we were to agree with you what would what would go forward being the entire case to go forward go back to just one weather so you've never had the chance to me i so i understood you to be making the other part of the campbell you wild argument too that you haven't yet had a fair chance to try for class certification we have a job that you might not get correct we went from  so you're not making any argument i mean of course again if it's calf it doesn't really matter if it's a kick in even if it's not kaffir i suppose you're still diversity jurisdiction for the the return of the car to the extent  eighty three thousand is in controversy or the eighty three cos the twenty seven hundred yes or so ok yeah now we're seeing all sorts of  variations on people trying to buy off class potential class action says the next case will also illustrated and another case that i heard earlier this year so this is part of a cutting edge area of the law come we can lower the podium a little bit if that would be good for you of north america which for today's purposes i'll just refer to as well though certainly in response to the plaintiff's arguments and of course subject to the questions and preferences of the court i'll be arguing that the district court's decision to dismiss case in its entirety for lack of subject matter jurisdiction was proper and should be affirmed for three reasons number one and both plaintiffs fail to show a personal concrete injury that was capable of being a factually redress by the district court though we're dealing with separate individuals who both lack standing for separate reasons so i'm baffled by evolve those position that one status is a purchaser of a car doesn't give one enough interest to unwind the transaction to complain that the item that was purchased was of inferior value as compared to what it was advertised to be i myself have purchased at least three cars from my three children that got titled in their name so i know that it can happen i think certainly there are situations where supplying the funds for a purchase might implicate some sort of legal complaint makes clear his involvement in the purchase of these call you know the thousand dollars is if it's in his interest a matter of common  sense i don't think so i think that there is allegations in the complaint that he was the purchaser in fact in the first complaint that was lisle the allegation was he was the sole purchaser well he may have been in the literal monetary sense if he paid the supply and what worries me is that we're conflating a couple of things here if this is really a judgment on the pleadings then we have to take the pleadings in the light most favorable to him if certification motion which it clearly is not then of course there would be fact finding going with it i know valvo says well we've contested article three standing on the facts not on the law but this precise what you put your money on a different proposition which is that only holding the title counts you never raised he didn't pay the money forward and purchasers have no standing i would disagree with that respectfully first of all address your point this isn't a case where it's judgment on the pleadings valvo brought a twelve b one motion and sometimes those cases can be involved judgment on the pleadings when it's a facial challenge but in this case there was actually a factual challenge by no where on either of those documents was exhibit or lauren's name present at that point who who presented to the district court the issue whether xavier paid for the car the argument was made that it was confusion that was the purchase or the purchase agreement was attached the title was attached and he said for that reason if there's anybody that has an interest it would be confusion she would be an indispensable party in response to that motion i'm at the present main hearing the plaintiffs had asked for leave to amend the complaint and so the the court obliged and allowed him to do that three weeks later he filed in many complaints and he continued to allege that he was the purchaser  along with his wife could usually laurens in response to that amended complaint although again moved to dismiss and made the same arguments as to exactly or that he had no standing because the are no legal or equitable interest in the vehicle and which is maybe not enough for me and i understand that maybe the purchase agreement does something but it does it may not do enough and in my view the purchase agreement it's marital property i think that that type of law applies when there is actually a dissolution and the parties are arguing about how property gets divided i don't think that plays into this dispute it might have been an issue had had the plaintiff come back  all those motion and put an affidavit in that said you know hey i do have a legal or equitable interest in this property i did supply the fines if they provided some sort of documents that further corroborated his involvement with the purchase the problem really  didn't need an affidavit that they were married know all or not i think and there is the law that as judge can you just mention correct eyeball the do not contest that they were married but i think that married people are  paid the thousand dollar deposit yes i think that is in dispute there was an allegation that he paid the deposit we came back with the purchase agreement which actually has a line item there for the deposit and again the only name on the purchase agreement is confusion which is what prompted the first motion and now if he really did bernie disagreement doesn't say anything about who in whose name the title to the accord was it doesn't say anything about who wrote the check maybe somewhere involved those records is a photocopy of the check i don't know what to the extent that there is and any ambiguity that's created by the documents i think that it was incumbent at that point for the plaintiff to come forward with competent evidence to show why he did in fact have standing because it is seen as follow submitted that evidence the plaintiff could no longer rest on his allegations at that point it became a contested factual issue and what claim it did was continue to a lot to rely on his allegations which is exactly what happened in the apex case so i want to switch over for a minute to condition because the other thing that worries me very much i'm going to give you two layers of worry about this about your position with respect to her and the pre the offer that with the the letter that was received before she joined the case are as follows first of all if campbell it walled stands for anything it stands for the fact that an accepted offer to settle litigation or a dispute even that's not reach litigation is not enough to resolve the case that slows directly from ordinary law of contract you and i can be talking about something and i can make you an offer but if you say i don't like your offer it doesn't matter if i've given you a wonderful offer your still entitled to say i don't like your offer the other thing that worries me very much about your position relates to the way settlement discussions happen in of great number of disputes before a complaint is actually filed the parties frequently sit down and see if maybe they can settle it without litigation so party a will say you know we have this is just beaut to avoid litigation i'm offering you one hundred thousand dollars and party b even if one hundred thousand dollars looks like everything  say you know i don't agree with your definition of everything i'm going to reject your offer and it seems to me your position about pre litigation offers would throw a terrible monkey wrench into settlement discussions which i think from a public policy point of view would be most unfortunate because settlement discussions where people feel free to throw numbers back and forth and to throw commitments to act back and forth resolve a lot of cases not every case obviously here we are still in business but they resolve a lot of cases and so both from the strict contract law point of view about an accepted offers and campbell you walton also from the policy standpoint your position gives me great concern unexpected settlement offer of the right does that make a difference seeing it makes a huge difference because the point and campbell you old was once that offer was either ignored and it lapsed on its own terms or under operation of the law or was rejected there was have zero minutes ok so you can answer the other half of my question yes i would like to actually i don't think that our position and would inhibit any type of settlement discussions because again we're almost for the same reason it really wasn't a settlement discussion it was really an unconditional surrender everything you wanted were willing to give it to you so that it wasn't an unconditional surrender would have killed a calf a class action i mean that's really not the same thing and we have plenty of laws that say somebody is interested in being a class representative also has monetary value that the actual right to pursue a class action i think is only and when we're looking at an individual not going to kind of settlement though we've we have in settlement terms particularly said the possibility of getting some sort of payment counts i think once there's been a motion for a class sort of a share of the class has actually been certified really until that point the class has no separate identity so at this point we're because it was brought as a punitive class action is doesn't campbell you would say that you have that opportunity actually the exact language in campbell you old is that only a plane to put the live claim of his or her own must be accorded that their opportunity and the reason is because of the contract the contract principles that you cited in campbell you all again there was no more offer the plaintiff was still left empty handed he didn't have that relief for the taking anymore because the offer had gone away the european advertising that this car could go twenty five miles on one charge is free you know within thirty days of purchase or something i you know you could make it up to get a full refund for their car for him back potentially ball though could have done that if it wanted to invite a class action i don't think it wanted to invite a class action and at this point i don't think forestall a class action perhaps i don't think there was anything in the strawman decision that was predicated on the fact that the relief that was offered was class white in nature what was definitive in that case to the judge was that that relief was fully available to those individual claims yes and that instead of taking that relieved they chose to spurn it and pursue litigation for the exact relief that they according to their pleadings there's no substantial likelihood that injuries to reoccur so i think there's clear so i was fifty four b sorry fifty four a rule fifty four c problem with that argument if they did have standing which i know you contest but if they did have standing for the damages then federal civil procedure fifty four c says that your entitle to any relief that the case would support whether or not you asked for it actually so there might be many cases in which an injunction would not be proper there might be other cases in which an injunction would be but it's not a standing issue it's ultimate entitlement to remedy issue may i may quickly respond to that point i don't think anything in the federal rules of civil procedure can it can't but i'm saying i'm not saying you can't raise this point i'm just saying that the type of remedy that somebody is entitled to is an issue that comes up after standing has been ascertained and i would just say that i think that in summers and plenty of other cases the the clear precedent is that the plaintiffs has the obligation to prove his standing for any type sidestep this they realized that the title was in his wife's name so rather than going to xavier which means you have to go to his counsel they were able to go directly to the wife and send her a letter she didn't respond we join her as a