court dismissed that bossuet said that it was terminated now from the earliest days of this court's issued me this nation's jurisdictional statutes that would be an appealable order under the aptly named final judgment rule and that must be so unless something changed with congress as an act and of section fourteen zero seven eight the multi district litigation statute and we ask you to hold that nothing changed and it was appealed will for three reasons the first is the judgment was entered in this action it was dismissed we had our own complaint our own docket our own lawyers our own plaintiffs in our own defendants the second is that there is no judgment in the m t l itself so there is nothing from which we could appeal at the end occasion so it must be that we appeal for this and the third is that we will fifty four b of the rules of civil procedure does not apply because that applies to the dismissal of part of an action some of the claims or some of the parties not the whole action and here the whole action was dismissed would you to me first what difference there is if any pursuant to your reasons that would not apply to a consolidated case for all purposes number one and number two isn't the case consolidated with others for purposes of pretrial proceedings action that involves multiple parties as to the first there are different forms of consolidation both sides agree with that they make this point the respondents two on page thirty three of their brief there are forms of consolidation that produce a single it happened under rule twenty with joint or it can happen under rule forty two a one if the parties consent with consolidation the cases can become so intertwined that there is effectively one case one complaint and one action that's rankly not the majority of cases that it may not happen most of the time it's in most of the mt you know most of the cases retain their individual character even both their consolidated for all purposes there may be a case that's taken as a test case among the many except for your group basically saying consolidation now will permit piecemeal appeals in almost every circumstance except for a very limited one problem in every point and then the question about what are real rule produces in m t l litigation is this district court recognize you actually don't have consolidation for all purposes section fourteen zero seven a specifies that there can be consolidation for pretrial purposes only the pretrial purposes in this case are over the complaint was dismissed now as to the policy arguments of the respondents that there is a grave concern that our rule would produce interlocutory appeals that go up to the court of appeals lots of different times there is a straightforward answer to that point and that is the district court's justice they have the discretion to enter a partial final judgment under rule fifty four b have the same discretion to avoid entering a final judgment in individual actions under rule fifty eight b and this is very common in m t l litigation just as you indicate justice at amoy my or very frequently district courts will enter consolidated complaints and will not enter orders in the individual actions that would be appealable the distinct feature of this case the critical distinct feature here is that this district court decided to dismiss it in its entirety our individual action she didn't have to do that but she did it consciously on to sneak a one hundred fifty day pollution kicking in i mean you say don't worry about this district courts can just put it on the back burner for three years however long doesn't one hundred fifty day promotion kick in if in fact the district court has dismissed all of the claims two things mr chief justice first we think it litigation as you well could be empty a little geisha and in the chocolate litigation there the district court used the tool that we're discussing right now it said i'm going to resolve some of the claims but i'm not going to enter an appealable judgment we do think that's the better we do how do you do that because you know not all of us can look it up case then the clerk is supposed to just enter one law is the judge supposed to not do that just noting that i do want to return to the other tools the district court has and i apologize t clerk not to enter a judge oh i see so he says don't do it but we have seven i mean i am moved by this we have a group of federal district judges yes who actually don't have to look these up because every day they work with them while they are actual are not grown rule you would agree with you we are going to produce a mess and then they have about seven different ways in which it will produce a mess in various cases and so obviously i do pay attention when the district judges do say that and so i'm not a district judge but i don't want to produce a mess for them d l is trying to do the opposite so what's the answer to what they say ok but they say mr justice prior is actually not that our  our rule does not produce automatic iraqi tory appeals because district judges are perfectly free to a number of tools only one of which we've been discussing not to and has as that happened was a district judge your rule is the district judge despite rule fifty eight b says i deny all relief in your case mr smith everyone goodbye then you say to the clerk clerk don't enter the piece of paper called the judgement because i don't want them to have taken appeal and then say by its terms that it applies only to the dismissal of some of the parties or some of the claims in the action the action throughout the rule of civil procedure rules of civil procedure refers only to one thing it is the individual piece of the big ation we have our own complaint it's seems to me that if you're asking for these sort of furtive measures we might as well face up to the problem right away and just put up mr waxman position or justice kennedy we don't think a decision we're asking the judge to be almost disingenuous we disagree for the following reason and that is if the point of mr waxman side is that district judges need discretion to decide when to enter judgments whether they're fifty four be partial final judgments or final judgments under was fifty eight the discretion should be the same and the tools that i'm talking about are not used disingenuously by your district judges they are used consistently and there you have been saying that there is no practical difference between your position and mr waxman special and i know what you're saying were fifty four is not the right vehicle and that's an important point it's important to get the rules right whether it's rule fifty four or something else but are you saying that there is no practical difference between the two i'm saying there is little practical difference there is some and that is that their side requires the district court and the court of appeals to have to litigate on whether the will fifty four b certification is appropriate and whether the district court abused its discretion in entering or will fifty four be judgment but there isn't much  final judgment i'll give you a very specific example the district court in this case entered a ruling in three different cases the o t c plaintiff's case the exchange plaintiff's case and the our client's the bondholder case and if the district court had instead entered her opinion in the o t c or exchanged complaints in a complaint that had just been any trust claim for example that did not have just in any trust claim then there would not be an appealable final judgment the district court quite consciously resolved all the any trust issues knowing that they would go up on appeal she just changed her mind only after the second circuit in a rule that the respondents do not defend decided that it did not want to hear the appeals a matter of its discretion it is quite important i don't think  if they do have jurisdiction and they said they did it to respond to the defendants did not move actually to dismiss our people the court of appeals applying this case by case rule it's very hard to predict which is why the respondents don't defendant said we think they didn't quoting myself in the hook that the inquiry should always be a practical one it isn't that efficiency is part of the calculus the court has said that there is a practical inquiry in one important respect and that is the court has broadened the notion of what could be an appealable final judgment but it has never denied the fact that when you decide the case you resolve it you terminate it as the district court does here that is a final judgment for the purposes that look at it as go forward what this is something the judge or a cough does with some regularity in complex litigation what he will say is my inclination is i'm going to ultimately say that the any trust claims cannot go forward and what i'm going to do therefore is stating any trust claims and therefore you do not participate in discovery for example but we do think it is important to recognize that there is a real reason for the appeals to go forward and that is that it avoids euclid of discovery when we have to come back after appeal and there is the very real prospect of i'm sorry rather know if he can say it for as long as he thinks is appropriate yes what's the difference what's the practical difference between the party and in terms of the effect on you know you're not going to participate in discovery under his system that's that is correct and so my point to the court is the following not just to the extent members of the court are concerned that the district courts are concerned the district judges that you cite justice prior that we shouldn't have these interlocutory appeals in the district courts have the tools to deal with that apply but they tell us these judges who are experienced stress on pages quilt and third district courts have evaluated the circuit factors that is fair before b factors in deciding whether to certify run among several consolidated cases for appeal footnotes and then in the footnote they have subgroup cases which i take it since they tell us that our cases where they were consolidated cases they use fifty four to say that we're on of the cases could go ahead on appeal so i took that is saying that judges are using fifty four b to accomplish the end that we seem apparently decades has been applied in the great majority of the country or in fifty in the majority of the country judges have said when we have four cases in front of us we have consolidated and we wish to courts enter judgments when they are prepared to work that issue to go up on appeal the rule is in the great majority of circuits that if you do enter a judgment in an individual action in m t l litigation you appeal and so district courts are perfectly aware of it we call it formal as if it were a bad thing that we have a final judgment rule but it is not a bad thing it is really important to have clarity i could understand mr goldstein what you're saying do you think that a judge probably considers the exact same factors whether it's done as the respondents would like under rule fifty four or instead whether it's done your way by staying the action or by holding off on a final order the answer that question is i  is that to the extent that you all did the court agrees with mr waxman's point the district courts need that discretion than our solution is simply to give them that discretion with respect to the entry of the final judgment it is not an argument against our position the argument that is affecting me at the end of the m t l there is no such order or judgment the only thing that i can appeal from is the dismissal of my action i do not know at the end of the m t l what it is that i'm actually appealing from they have the other problem that they have is that rule fifty four b doesn't apply here because the entire act we're going to have to change the meaning of what an action is throughout the all of the rules of civil procedure which is uniformly the single piece of litigation the single complaint and there is no reason to create confusion and magine after the ruling that mr waxman wants there are fewer cases in the district court and they relate to the same sort of facts and the district court dismiss is one if you introduce this ambiguity about what an action is then people are going to be unclear about when it is that they should be appealing because our lawsuit is a separate one it is in a separate docket we have a separate complaint isn't doesn't it become clear once we announce it it's not like anybody involved in and do you know do carefully know what's going on that's the advantage of those cases it does not end there is an order there's an order terminating the m d o and just sending the cases that are going to be sent back back in the ones who are f those are finalized here's what happens and i suggest that the court look at the docket for example in the fontainebleau m t l which is i think them for twenty one o six so what happens here is that at the end of the proceedings imagine the district court dismisses complaint a that will be my complaint and then later on complaints b and c seven so they are done they are voluntarily dismissed so there is no final judgment there it could be years later what the district court will do is it will send a recommendation to the j p l saying i think that this case is over the j p l which is not even in that circuit will enter an order saying we agree it is possible that the district court will just enter a notation in the mean and yell docket saying the m d l is closed but that is not an order or judgment from which we are appealing it is not an rather err judgment that affects us it's not a judgment at all it's just an administrative notation this is a place where turning square corners matters where you should apply the actual statutes and rules we don't need a new regime about what an action is what the judgment is what a final judgment is in order to encourage accommodate the important policy concerns that mr waxman may be raising we don't have to change the meaning of rule fifty four b i have a lawsuit it has a judgment the district court judge decided to dismiss it i'm supposed to appeal if it if there's an m d you know for pretrial purposes and the district court thinks that one of the some cases like yours just should not proceed does the detroit church have does now it ministre de vliet if the district judge thinks that they just don't belong in the m t l that michael they will send a recommendation to the j p l now this is i think an important point and if i could just take you to section fifty of the fourteen zero seven again this is a case about a statute and this is going to be in the blue brief at page two the blockquote is the m t l statute and the m t o statute makes quite clear that the actions inside the m t l are separate actions during the n d l and so what i recommend to you is if we go about halfway down there is a sentence after the word actions that begins each action it's a line to get and begins actions each action so transferred shall be remand by the panel so it's a separate action to add or before the conclusion so and before the conclusion of such pretrial proceedings to the district from which it was transferred to that's when it begins or after it's done unless it shall have been previously terminated provided however and this is the sense that deals with during the m t l that camp that the panel may separate any claim cross claim counter claim were third party claim and remained any of such claims before the remainder of the action is remanded the n t l statute provides work consolidated proceedings that is the district judge is going to bring the cases together administer discovery together enter orders sometimes to apply the individual actions sometimes that applied to all of the actions but the relevant point is that they are separate actions they are actions that get initiated and at the end they get dismissed and it's called the final judgment rule because it's a will it's not called the semifinal constituent matter principle when our case gets dismissed it's over and we are supposed to appeal point is that the flexibility that both sides agree and the the retired district judges certainly underscored that district courts need and the relief that the courts of appeals need from the obligation to hear siriano piecemeal appeals the application of the rule it was specifically designed for this which is rule fifty four b now he says fifty four b doesn't apply what that means is i let me just first start by a separate appeal for a claim counter claim cross claim or third party claim so your fifty four b argument i think is the pendant on the proposition that mr gold theory could fit within fifty four b that takes a little bit of more than perhaps a little bit of pounding to fit that in there don't you think no i don't and neither does every single court that has construed the  of fifty four let me before i get to the terminology let me just underscore i realize this may be read waving a red flag in front of this body but there are not a single  commentator anywhere has suggested that in consolidated cases whether they are consolidate that are well consolidated under rule forty two whether they come in by m t l or not that action refers to the consolidated proceedings for such a length as they are consolidated and you know judge ginsburg's the other been spurred on the d c circuit opinion in but it could still versus henderson explains that it is a looking for a certain kind of flexibility which is important which i take it both sides have agreed to some point but the question is whether they found it in the right section and i think what you're being asked is if you just look at this section this section is about multi party multi claim single actions that's what the section is all about and it's being used for a purpose for which it was never designed i  matter the route fifty four b was the product of the court's experience of wising out of these medical bass actions particularly exemplified in the electric equipment any trust litigation and that's a will for the legislative history of rule fifty four where fifty four b and fourteen zero seven don't didn't exist at the time and weren't acted in the wake of that and the what the what the legislative history shows is that these fifty four i guess fifty four b was in existence but not fourteen zero seven fifty four b was the mechanism  consolidated actions by which particular issues of law were you would by the courts of appeal and what is needed on in this in this case the end of the day the actions are so you're what you're saying is that well it's one action for a while but then as many actually begin begins as many start then this one for a while and it's going to be many again is that the dynamic the tractor that is exactly the dynamic for whatever length of time the consolidation occurs that is the last point in this in my mind is that if we take your room one problem with his group one problem with your group is you have to muck around with the word action need to i mean there's no doubt you do you have to consider it a single action while it's consolidated one problem with his route is that a nobody's ever done it they're both what you're right and nobody said much about it and one problem with his route is you treat consolidations were the multi district panels involved and you consolidated for discovery differently than you treat consolidations in an ordinary district court has four cases in consolidates that's a problem with his  seems to me sort of balance there but one thing he said that i don't the did register is he said if we take your route what happens when the multi district is over see eight months ago his case was dismissed and a judgment was entered in his in his case which is now only part of the case on your theory when he's exposed what is he appealing from when did the thirty day clock begin to run and suppose by the way it was never sent he was never really sent back because everybody else settled how does that work well let me just say i have your question firmly in mind i want to just observe two things about the premises to your question well it is that in the trial court justice ginsburg i totally agree and if there were any ambiguity this court's union in this decision and lexicon made that clear the point is that it is up to the transferee judge as it is up to any judge in a civil case using the tools provided under rule forty two to decide how to manage the cases that have been transferred the judge may decide to let them cross you know only a couple of them let him or proceed on the role of the judge may consolidate them which is a to speak of consolidation of cases they speak of consolidated proceedings where were do you get the notion that the cases have been consolidated and if that motion w true surely the consolidation must tama make when one of the cases is dismissed how can it still be consolidated when it's dismissed in the other and the other cases are proceeding i'm not quibbling at all justice scalia with the language i'm perfectly happy to say that the proceedings are consolidated the point here is the significance well out there i don't i think it doesn't really make a big difference the point here is as this court has repeatedly question because that is troubling to me as well at what moment and if it's a notation for if it's a settled case when does he appear that the they appeal period r here because he's not appealing from the judgment entered on behalf on for against the improprieties let's be very very clear about what he says he's appealing for the only document that he has pointed to that suggests that he had a judgment way back in march of two thousand and thirteen is entry forty three in the docket which is far reproduced on page eleven area of the joint and this he has right well what she said is adjudicating the request by every part is for a fifty four b certification this is on page two twenty of the petition subsequent motion under the get subsequent motion under fifty four b after the dismissal for lack of jurisdiction by the court of appeals but first point out to you that the that she's referring to forty three which says that the case is terminated pursuant to instructions from chambers you know i wonder why isn't there anything on the docket that in fact terminates it in the answer is on page pages fifteen through nineteen of the joint appendix where as you can see on page one thousand she has reissued the same memorandum in order as modified three days later and the language that they like t cite for the notion that there was a judgment in their case is missing and that's why they in fact continue to be a party to the consolidated and this is let's go back to my question i agree with you i there isn't one here in which case he can't appeal ok that's a separate reason i'm now assuming another case the case is there is a separate piece of paper in his case called the judge his point is that gives me a piece of paper called the judgment to appeal from it was entered at a certain time and now i know when the clock starts that's right what i said was a lot some time ago that what i thought he had a point is in such a case if we treat the consolidation of proceedings like we treat a consolidation of cases without the multi district he cannot appeal from that piece of paper yes to wait in the ordinary situation not multi district until there is another piece of paper resolving everything then he starts to appeal but at least he has a piece of paper which maybe he lacked here ok right now so he's saying here in the multi district situation there will be a separate piece of paper i can't appeal from what is the piece of paper from which i know the clock on appeal begins to run the same piece of paper that he lacks even to this day will be hearing at the moment well ok but i'm not always finish my sentence at the end when the district judge certifies that the consolidation period is over whether that's you know at the end of discovery or at the end of pretrial proceedings or in a case under rule forty two at the end of the trial of the case or a case of the parties will see to the extent the court has not entered it under rule fifty eight a separate piece of paper that says either judgment or that's the functional equivalent stadium and reading what the second circuit said this is on page two a of the petition and directs and that's what it says is this court has determined to respond to it that it lacks jurisdiction over these appeals because a local order has not been issued by the district court as contemplated by section twelve ninety one comma and the writers of the writers appealed from did not dispose of them for claims in party proceedings either because they are different cases that are consolidated for a period of consolidation or a single omnibus complaint which could have happened in this case a ruling as of a particular party or all of the parties as to a particular claim becomes a judgment when and only when the district court certifies a judgment under fifty but that's quite different  were defending the proposition i thought that the second circuit said that there had been no final judgment in this case not in the consolidated cases but no final judgment in this case and i don't read that  that order on on page two as saying anything other than that there's not been a final order under under twelve ninety one because all the cases have not been disposed of well i guess you know we can speculate about what they meant they didn't say because they said there is no final order under twelve ninety one end well of the cases in the consolidated proceedings haven't been disposed of but let me just make one public that's a very strange way to read i mean  the opinion of my case isn't turning on what actually happened here but i think in fifteen about the meaning of final decision under twelve ninety one which doesn't use the word actually and what a final decision is we live and i toured what is a healthy legal system this case i think i think it's important to focus on just the features of this case as one of many many examples why the r advocating is not correct the argument before us this morning that there wasn't a final judgment on petitioner argues that there was under rule fifty eight c to be and you didn't address that i believe in your brief so what is wrong with that argument if a to the well the fifty eight c to b is one hundred fifty days from the quote judgment that's reflected in fifty eight b and fifty eight b one in particular says you know entering judgment without the court's direction and it says that if a court issues and the other quit orders otherwise the clerk asked enter a written judgment but the cabby out there which does apply in this case for reasons because this does not involve these consolidated proceedings are in action within the meaning of fifty four is that fifty eight b one is subject to fifty four b now out in terms of let me just make the point i was trying to make before which is look exactly what the petitioner is trying to do in this case just as an example of what a healthy judicial system is they say that they're entitled to and they're required immediately to appeal in the second circuit is obligated immediately to consider their appeal notwithstanding among other things two things in particular one even as we talk with the court is considering this case the district judge is considering claims by the plaintiffs in seven other consolidated cases that have raise sherman act claims that in fact are a prior ruling on sherman act any trust injury does not apply to them the briefing on those motions on that issue will be completed i believe on christmas eve and so if an appeal had been proceeding the second circuit would be considering precisely the same thing that the judge is reconsidering and the cases are legion and w else would seem to be very efficient and would save her the difficulty of reconsidering it if the second circuit rules one way or another it seems to me that the efficiency arguments in these cases you know they can go either way and probably go either way depending upon the nature of the case it would be very efficient would say for the time to reconsider it if she had a ruling from the second circuit just to be clear mr chief justice what she's considering are not requests to reconsider she denied those a year ago august these who claim that they are empty trust claims in their mind significantly different than the claims that i thought are making the other point so the claims that she's looking at really are not affected by want the court of appeals to be able to consider the question of any trust injury hafter the district judge has finally come to a concluded view as to the role of the consolidated didn't put the chief justice is indicating is to the extent that the issues the claims of the cme fish and see argument can cut both ways to the extent that the claims are different what's the problem with an appeal well the clip of appeals is being asked to consider the facts twice well there look you can always argue that there are certain efficiencies in taking immediate piecemeal appeals our system since the judiciary act of seven hundred eighty nine has set its site against that and said that runs and the point is that there are other pardons in the consolidated pleadings that say that their claims and their plaintiffs stand in a different position under the sherman act with respect to didn't consider justice ginsburg the seven parties that are now claiming that they are different she was only considering the application by certain other parties for a fifty four b certification and if you look at what the judge did after the second circuit held that it lacked jurisdiction i think it's pretty revealing lawyers and the lawyers of the parties who previously had had a fifty four b certification went back to the judge and said ok there was the second circuit thinks that there wasn't a final but it would be great to have the court of appeals decide be any trust injury issue please issue a fifty four b certification and here is what the judge said this is on page two ninety four of the joint appendix quote this case has a wonderful host of interesting issues we could send six different issues up to the circuit we're not doing that seriatim we're going to clean up this complaint we're not picking and choosing particular questions and sending them up and at the end of that hearing the counsel for some of then grant a fifty four be served occasion and she said i'm not prepared to rule on that at this moment there's efficiency to the system and you have arguments about that but there's also fairness to the parties how many years are these people whose case is as far as the district court is concerned supposed to sit around and wait for the big fish to resolve their cases well the it is a feature of the rule against piecemeal litigation that individual litigants sometimes have to wait but what is particularly just kind of begs the question well this is piecemeal or not for these people well i think here's the point there is a case they have found not a single case in forty six years of litigation where any party in their position or a similar position has had to wait an time and that is because in appropriate cases whether the cases are consolidated for all purposes or some limited purpose the courts exercise their discretion under rule fifty four b it is never happened that someone in their position has had to work has been required to wait for years and years at least neither we nor they who i'm confident have she has left fully open the possibility that when she finishes resolving the pleading problems including the claims of the other seven sherman act plaintiffs who say they're different she will reconsider whether to rule fifty four b while i you know might my friend on the other side says well you know there are all sorts of obscure procedural mechanisms where you could get this flexibility the plumed here is that presumption is that piecemeal appeals will go forward unless the district judge affirmatively acts under the regime as we understand it and has quotes and commentators have understood it the process the appeal will not go forward unless the district court makes the two findings that rule fifty four be required to when it is that there really is a final router or a final decision and second that there is  appealable judgment we addressed it in footnote one of our certify brief and we were so obviously right that this is governed by rule fifty eight see that the respondent abandoned this argument in the marriage brief the district court said our action is terminated and we but no ok and we discuss at length there concessions that there was a final judgment what it is the second circuit did why it is terminating is a judgment all of this points this was presented to you and we were certainly right that they'd didn't even make the argument in their marriage we could majority of the country and has been for decades every time that i give you two kinds of cases the circuit titian cite all of the cases in the courts of appeals including the d c circuit that say when you enter the judgment in the individual action it appealable i have given you the one nine three five that uses that fifty eight example but as justice ginsburg indicates it's commonplace for m d o courts to enter stays in an individual actions on ice without entering judgments the system as we describe it has been working for decades without any difficulty in justice my third elementary point is that when mr waxman says there are all of these other actions out there it is a little bit of an optical illusion when the district court entered this opinion which resulted in our judgement she entered the same order in every other single pending case she was quite clear that it applied to all of the cases in the m p l she denied reconsideration explaining that no one could have trust standing if there are other unrelated antitrust claims then there's no problem with our appeal now my big point is that there is no reason for you to muck about with them cause confusion in the law with respect to what a final judgment is what an action is what a what a constituent matter in an action is when we can address all of us policy concerns in the way that m p o courts have been doing for decades there's going to be considerable confusion that results whether we suppose to appeal from just spire if you know the answer to your question which you asked three times at the sending end of this argument you are alone i believe i do not know what it is that i am supposed to appeal from particularly if some of the cases settle what is safe it's called the final judgment rule we have a final judgment in our action and madge in the following forms of confusion what happens with american pie polling when was our action dismissed therefore some other individual person is required to file an individual lawsuit what happens when you have multiple lawsuits that are together that look alike are those now are a single action what if the different basuto are cool world needed rather than consolidated because remember the three schwab lawsuits were consolidate coordinate here not consolidated what did those people do why is it that you want to create a regime that creates all these doubts that has a new final judgment rule a new definition of action despite the uniform meaning in all of the civil procedures that will create just follow on confusion when i have offered you the simple solution and that is the district judge will enter a the action if the district judge wants it to be appealed if that is basically you're saying are there any other mechanisms for the district court to get to where it wants or reiko don't enter anything don't enter enter and it stay and don't enter under fifty eight tell the clerk the clerk of the court not under under forty to create a consolidated complaint as was done here with the o t c in exchange actions that's actually very common and that is the m p o court will say i have four lawsuit in front i am under rule forty two going to consolidate them into a single master complaint that master complaint will have four different claims in it and then the district court will simply resolve one of the claims in the master action without entering a judgment in the individual action master action the master complained it's not actually an action there's a n d l docket at main and d l docket and the district just doesn't enter a judgment in the individual naturally design when it's consolidated only for purposes of pretrial discovery it can if it is what's known there's a six circuit case called that discusses this issue in a second circuit case called can't you just called an administrative complaint the district court uses this administrative complaint to manage the litigation and that administrative complaint doesn't have the same docket is the individual actions and the district court is perfectly capable of saying i'm going to resolve the antitrust claim not an action and claim inside this voter administrate of complaint without entering a judgment and when there is no judgment there's no appeal and you can and now it's that will give the district courts the flexibility that the retired district i just want without reading all of this unnecessary doctrinal confusion as you say justice sotomayor district judges pay a lot of attention to your rulings they will know what it is that they are supposed to do and we just don't have a mess later i counsel the case is submitted