different appeals going on if we if the court would indulge us for five extra minutes hour and five we have that divide that thank you i will we will take which in which this court basically said that you look at the nature of the claim this is the claim of basically roughly six hundred dollars per person for people who were wrongly induced to have to buy a new dishwasher i otherwise the only people who would be able to appeal are those who are a student of to figure out that they need to formally intervene which doesn't give you anything you haven't done anything else if you have objected but well if you have be back for a couple minutes before beforehand ok but you have to rely on some source of real information and the source i gather you're relying on is the actual order of the new york court before the appeal ok to the facts were before the court by law firm filed the first nationwide class action you know it's court in tampa under we go we also advanced various common law and one dismissed we asked for it were given the right we plead our complaint which we did and changed the enterprise theory which happened to coincide with a decision by the united states supreme court in the gun king case in california which was eventually consolidated with the case that mr donaldson was lead counsel and with that trigger at least some sort of co counsel relationship or at least you know you may be counsel to the other counsel which might suggest that you could be a when directly for an appropriate fees i've never thought about that i will tell you why i think we were in effect class counsel in this ca named counsel look at the time this case was filed you have plenty of opportunity to make an appearance prior to the settlement and it never happened i may never have filed a notice but i appeared on behalf of the plaintiffs in california at a deposition in kentucky as a result of the cordon of efforts to advance discovery against me and i was the only one there for the plaintiffs here in california and i took the deposition  the declaration describing all the things we did in connection with reaching a compromise of this class action as did mr donaldson very just came back to us and said the way i understood it to a party having a right to  the rest of my career you know i'll remember that but i thought what i did was right and the fact of matter is general electric knew i was there general electric encouraged my support for saddam and at the end of the i appreciate your work thank you honor let me start first with the the issue of standing since it was the first issue that was raised and well it is laid out in our brief and i'm not going to spend much time on it i think the notion that somehow this court has already resolve years ago on marshall the holiday magic really overstates the holding of the case i think the question is fairly joined by the supreme court's decision in government and they were very careful to limit that to be one class actions and for good reasons chapters the opportunity to opt out i think they had their own actions pending they had every right to pursue them and continue them they chose not to and in those circumstances i think there's a very fair question as to whether or not they have standing and i submit in the unique and that's the reason for the class action you have to push through in the context of a class action so the only way they're going to burn themselves is to get a better class so that we have no practical remedies that well i think in the case of certain people that is true and i would agree with that i w stands by mr levy that judge patel didn't say anything he didn't consider anything other than to conclude that the lawyers would also agree that's just not fair and it's not true and if you read the transcript  supposed to the argument you heard today you will see that judge patel went carefully through all of the factors relevant to the settlement she queried the lawyers for the objectors on several occasions as to what they thought was a fair they're coming here claiming that this one is unfair what do they think is fair and they couldn't answer the question they were asked several times and in fact with respect to the new york decision which again they claim judge patel  disregarded and didn't didn't have information about that's not true either judge patel analyzed the new york decision and asked them at the hearing pointedly what their position was cancelled would you respond to believe it was so in the first instance we talk about what is a matter of record and that's put before and that's clearly not mr and that's what you know but you must have some sense about what he's talking about when he talks specifically makes the allegation  was misinformation communicated but the number of spelling flame as from the amount and so forth g e made certain representations i was not in a position to do that i had no information to make any sort of representation so what i was able to do was simply read the decision and see what the court said as to what one would have to prove in order to be a participant in the new york actually it was a far more difficult burden of proof and a far more limited class of people that are in place by the class than the classroom and gets released to everybody no matter what their circumstances are if they fit within the group in new york you have to go further you have to prove that you in fact would not have bought a dishwasher unless you had we had these disclosure we believe are false as well and acted in reliance on them now and g e gave a qualification to the court as to how many people they thought at that point in time would be entitled to recover as i understand the matters that have been submitted  d now lastly i want to point out about new york i mean what we have in this case is we had a claim that people who bought a dishwasher for two hundred twenty nine dollars that's what the dishwasher cost what did they pay for it after the rebate they paid one hundred fifty four dollars for it and they gave up the old machine that's half of that they got twenty dollars or fifty depending on whether you look at it from the cash standpoint or the standpoint of the warranty so people have a two hundred twenty dollar titled to more i look carefully at the law i frankly disagree with what the new york court did i think it's great if you can get there but i don't think it's something that could have been a change in this litigation i don't think lawyers should be making settlements based upon now you have you also parted with all machine it only cost twenty dollars to buy it new is it worth one hundred dollars or seventy five dollars after it's been there for twelve years this is a compromise is a perfect settlement there is no such thing as a aggregation rules that apply to class actions and in fact there were two cases down in the northern district of california where this was brought in which the same issue was plain in the courts held there was jurisdiction you could look at the c each of the people that are affected are truly the general public i mean it's an apartment has one of these things and it catches on fire it's certainly possible that the damage can spread to people other than those people it's simply on the dishwasher but let me get back to your point your honor about whether you have to throw it out there's a second ground in this case holy apart from the first city for jurisdiction there is a separate rico case that was brought by another california counsel was consulted with this case that case you enterprise claim and i think at the end of the day you know your honor may well be right we may lose that claim i understand that but the real test is whether it's frivolous and i must admit i don't believe that it's in any way for ultimate decision in march so yes there was an old case either way on this question although it just seems to me that if you if you have a a single party case and you can bring a decision but has judged him a correctly pointed out i mean you could certainly come to the same view on that issue as you would on an aggregation so i think taken together the court had adequate about attorneys for these attorneys maybe i should ask you right now where it would be willing to share some of your views with your counsel i guess i would answer that question in this way off the stuff that's a different issue but that's you know when we're talking about the fees and sharing and reopening and i'm presuming a contrary circumstance to the extent that the fees issue is disturbed  let's start off and response some of these questions about the new york case it was a summary proceeding before the trial court in new york it was brought by the attorney general in new york as a summary proceeding there was no right across examination there were no discovery there was no evidence or hearing and because it had gone on for a fair just and still in the proceeding and because we already had the adverse ruling we decided to exclude new york from the from the s didn't win that appeal that opinion is the same one that the same one that you were viewed at the time she made her fairness determination is the one that's in effect today we know from the from her views there one thing we did say was that we hoped that the amount would be limited to about two hundred new yorkers and the basis for that was that there was a letter sent out to about fifty five hundred people nationally two hundred of them from new york thought that that would affect only two hundred the court had subsequently determined that even people who got word of mouth of that communication would have a right to participate and that's what jumped the number up from two hundred to two thousand but we didn't make any representation that that was the only group of people that could be affected point of the new york case was that it was a very limited group of people people had to file individual eyes proofs that point they had to swear under oath that they could rely specifically  but for the representations they would have not purchased another dishwasher and as a result only about ten percent of those people that were eligible even participated there's this class where one hundred percent of the ninety thousand people not only didn't have  cases most of them were dismissed we were aware that he invited himself to a deposition although he was never a council of record and we objected to this participation in the deposition we were on record in the deposition that he said that he was he was taking the deposition on behalf of the california plaintiffs i don't know what else he could have said but i have to assume that but as far as this participation in the settlement negotiations he did participate  his conversations are related work or one single telephone call where he called and said i understand that you're not going to pay me and the answer was that's absolutely correct we did not know we were very clear about that we didn't know who was going to come out of dance that claim on behalf of the consumers who are members of the putative class case was filed a motion for class for vacation was filed and we did everything we could to advance the ball on behalf of the consumers the fact that we don't have a notice