numbers and i just sent a letter a physical letter also to each here cost number in this he is seeking information about the us and state citizenship yet she chose not to present any evidence from that survey teach erroneous about the factual finding or the inferences drawn by the district court and to say it does not seem remarkable to me that under the circumstances presented here in the evidence of submitted here that the district d court had a basis to infer that at least one rd of the class consisted of citizens of california what was wrong with the  mean what is it more than ninety percent of the last members or purported class members were residents of california at the specific time that by the time of the for well i think you've got to be careful if you have to distinguish between cases involving groups in cases involving individuals in this case all the plaintive needs to establish so mobile that if ninety percent plus words california residents when they were working there there's going to be less than one rd a short time later that just doesn't make any sense and so why is that those who demand more from the a court to decline jurisdiction the bomb controversy exception has been met and and as your arms have pointed out it only requires meeting a couple of factors says that rep taint and submitted into evidence were the result of employment records that a routine years ago in fact it's quite to the contrary and i would say that this case is actually quite interesting when compared to the king case and in the sense that in the king case when the same appellants counsel was before and your honor on that case they tried to urge the district court to accept a stipulation there they tried to urge the court to accept a stipulation that more than two thirds of the class were california residents at some point in time and the idea of judicial stoppel was floated by your honour's at that point and the reason why is because it's very important that a party cannot take advantage of a court insider manipulative or by by representing something and then later backtracking then essentially that's what we have here because the evidence that was put forth of course it's not just some random addresses that were pained by these employees at the commencement of their employment in fact it was much different than that we went further and we obtained a declaration from the defendant  their counsel which stated as i believe one of your honors has pointed out that that this was one hundred percent accuracy and that was one hundred percent accuracy based on the recent wage and weight statement records and the personnel files that were contained and that was recent in the sense that these records were verified input into evidence and importantly magistrate judge elizabeth the court fashions her order to ensure that there was accuracy providing those addresses they were the most recent so not only were they provided some point during the beginning of their point when they were actually verified and evidence was put in about the tax records about the weight statements and other personal records and that's why there was a declaration provided about the one hundred percent accuracy but we didn't rest on that alone even though we believe that that would be enough based on monitored on that we met our burden and the burden would then shift with that presumption of to provide some some evidence which they provided nothing instead we provided the evidence regarding the rd party administrator not just conducting a notice of change of address search tracing so he took the very very minimal amount of assumptions that need to be made based on the evidence and so going back to the actual the law the four points raised by based on the entire record and it wasn't an exceptionally difficult burden to me in that case and the court is allowed to look at and make inferences from the record the differences are also provided one but this was all of these employees actually more than one rd of them were current employees at the time that we filed the complaint and didn't even rest by getting the verification one hundred percent verification and the representations made to the magistrate judge about the accuracy of these addresses we went further than that we actually asked for the driver's license information  filed we asked for information about where the bank accounts were located for all these class members we were denied all that information and the point drawing back to is we were asked for all of  information but once we would tame attain the verification and accuracy and investigation that was ordered by the magistrate judge that this was one hundred percent accurate information verified by the other evidence in the record which is the summary of the tax records in the way statements that was enough for us to meet our burden and to show the presumption of continuing domicile at that point it was the palin's burden to come up with some evidence whatsoever they could have run their own and see a way se they actually believed that as opponents argue that certainly this is that is that is the presumption sufficient for establishing the u s citizenship requirement as counsel are you yes but we did actually we believe that it's the factors apply the statutory factors applied by the district court were all that required under three and we don't believe that there was actually an affirmative showing requirement then nor could there be i mean that's that's the reason why the th circuit monitor going fashion the way that it was that there needed to be some evidence in the record and didn't need to be exceptionally difficult you know i understand that for employment class actions that we will probably be able to obtain evidence a current employment and we will be able to obtain evidence about their addresses which may seem to be a lighter burden than other but but there's no difference here we're still going to have the path exception apply and it was created for a reason it and that's the reason why i just travel set forth all the factors that is that that exception exists for situations such as this but i would say that this case is a little bit different and the actions taken by both the counsel with the representations that were not just relied on by us as counsel judge the court relied on those representations when she fashioned the order when we were looking for additional information she was represented that there was one hundred percent accuracy and acquired it doesn't really say that the degree of the surveys i know that some have said that that they need you know higher than a two thirds gender but we're not looking at that here and over there was just just were clear there was no survey conducted by me and us to conduct some limited form of jurisdiction he initially let us only have forty days in order to conduct that discovery meaning it didn't need to be onerous in order for us to go collect the evidence that we that we have tainted it ended taking a month later because we had much the help of judge a port in order to get the order from her where we could came investigation verifying the address as just just a couple of other points that i wanted to make is that the burden of proof for the standard of review here has been pointing out is that the clearly erroneous but but i think willingness to participate in our in our virtual court under these circumstances so thank you very much we appreciate that thank you casey adams the st morning products is targeted at this time and that complete