granting of a motion to dismiss based on the rest judicata the issue in this case your honour's is that the fenton settled a class action any federal claims at all subsequently defendants reached a settlement with the class my client did not opt out and ultimately filed and indeed chapter she did not the effect of this judgment correct yes that is for and if you want to make sure we got this platform now we've got a higher hurdle to go work on because you're starting to be put the platform down yes so the three something they couldn't have been asserted as a class action but nonetheless it was covered by the release then why i mean why is why is your client even better off then if she had just had a claim on by herself  they after let's say was meant to protect protect employers from from litigation requiring an active opt in so that when when when it was brought about so it was she paid us in the same position that while you're out i just don't see it that way because once again well answer question because i think it's very important her question goes to the merits of what you're that's why i don't  relinquished and discharge doesn't say all state claims doesn't say all claims or anything about that it says all claims in accordance with the terms of the re agreement and then it says all claims now we're talking about will release claims are that were or could have been planted based on factual allegations in the complaint without limitation claims for unpaid wages and overtime for it and so if you're saying well my client released my client i understand they released all claims but they object to it but your honor the notice knowing that there would be a good thing about filing a federal claim that all claims might have released a drama as you just said my client had noticed specifically notice of the cannot distinguish and that's that that's the specific language from california law and i know that's why i put the california law into you to begin with and we got to go in california look it says if the matter was within the scope of the action or related to the subject matter and relevant to the issues so that it could have been raised then it's conclusive correct but in villagers what we had was a case based on the california labor co the underlying case was to fight for reasons number one the underlying claim asked for penalties hilliker was seeking civil penalties so the underlying plane in the  same defended as i'm not but the other point i want to make about i mean i'm just saying it's the very same claim that the arrogance was raised with i'm not just with the other issue we're not disputing that well what i'm saying is the other issue of villagers that they actually had a release that releases federal claims in doing or in the the the other case that defend insight which was the richardson  wells fargo all of these cases have specific language that releases the federal claims it is specifically the release the notice all says federal clades are really that's my understanding is i mean aside cases that come before us all have a specific length the specific language that you are releasing federal planes there defend they cannot point to a case to support their position o notice of the class action in the matter she was provided ample warning what might happen if she didn't decide to opt out of that class action she chose not to do so for whatever reasons and now she seeks to relive aga exact issue that was settled unresolved presumably the reason is because she wants other people to be able to enjoy her i mean she could have saved herself but it would have been hard to save anybody else unless they also acted now well she could have opted out and then has been resolved and has been paid for with a large settlement that a court took the care to review to make sure it was fair provided everyone an opportunity to appear in a fairness hearing and after the fact a year after the fact the plain said well whether or not you can do that isn't a third role constitutional question it's a state law question and they went on to show that delaware allowed this what do we know about wh jurisdiction in the federal court case law and i don't know of any case law on that i know of an unpublished california decision that allowed the release of federal claims in state court that we cited in our brief but it is and whilst i'm a shot at that of claims in general of course you could release federal claims the question is whether you can release federal current claims that couldn't have been brought this one could be brought in state court but not the way it was brought right r t and that way is it's less of a jar than mattress she chip but what about is there any california law about how far you can go in releasing claims that couldn't have been properly before the state courts i think the california jurisprudence is that the cases have to involve the same injury for race due to kind of purposes and regardless there is a very specific question well i guess i'm misunderstanding my point is that regardless of whether it was a federal claim that could only be brought in a federal court in telephone and if you released that claim as part of some litigation that involved the same injury then it doesn't matter whether it was a claim that could on claim you could add i mean that's how they're always litigated when you want to capture other people most of the time to get litigated under state law because it provides better remedies and more expansive protection longer stretches on the tape and more protections generally in california you get overtime and this rankled didn't opt in which then people i think she would be precluded i think she would be pretty fluid under the rationale and richardson if she didn't opt out of the state plane she would still be precluded because the substance of the f l s say rights are the substance of rights not the procedure in the supreme court distressingly decided that you can compromise all of your f s a claims to go in a collective action by being required to agree to arbitrate those individually in epic systems so those that write to consent is not a true right or it's not a substantive right it's a procedural requirement that was put into place to try to curb litigation and there are other avenues available to employees which were used here and there's no constitutional due process reason that this release shouldn't be held to bound m knew what was coming she could have taken several different actions to preserve rights if she believed those were important to preserve she didn't she rested on her laurels for over a year and now purports that she wants to bring this not just for herself but for all poll the people out there the poor folks who she let their statute of limitations keep running because none of their statute of limitations get expanded because of the consent opt in procedure that procedure is designed not to do what we're in gal wanted to accomplish here and expand the scope of class actions it's designed to eliminate unnecessary class actions and needless litigation on behalf of litigants that don't care that don't want to recover ten dollars an alleged unpaid overtime and this is a ruling in favor of angolan this case opens everything wide open every person who has settled a state press section four or an individual action for that litigants have only litigated under the labor poet in california all of those state actions are now whether they're individual whether they're class action if you accept the promise that's been presented by rangel that there's something super special about the consent and said this should cover the f l s a claim there are at least some courts that would have thought that there are i don't think they would buy it anymore after epic systems i don't think that that's i mean that in my view the because of the n r a that was and it wasn't that that's not a substantive right to sue collectively it's it's not protected under the n r a which was the novel new argument presented and the position the well whether the release can bind her it's well settled in california law that absent class members are bound by releases it's the only reason people settle class actions of every absent examination says that this is special because i had an op then that's her story well but that's the circular part of it i mean it begs the question if if the f l essay is not set up to give you extra secret powers in litigation it doesn't allow you to avoid a full faith and credit act of congress  sophisticated this would have been over had they released the claims what what defendant now wants this court to do is basically say settlement agreements will mean whatever we want them to mean even though we don't put the language