claim on behalf of himself in the class cafe and federal question i understand the court has a question it would like us to address about whether federal question jurisdiction was preserved for appeal but i'd like to st address the statute of limitations establish that a six year statute of limitations applied to the contract law claim which simplifies resolution of the amount of issue for caf and establishes jurisdiction clearly nd to show that even under a two year statute of limitations all  requirements are met and once again the court had jurisdiction and rd of course to address this court's question about preservation of the federal question jurisdiction argument as federal question provided the alternative basis for jurisdiction of the district court this court in rivera versus perry and sons clearly addressed exactly the issue presented here with respect to the statute of limitations like this case rivero was a case involving h two a visas and the contract it is created under a nation under the age to a visa program the plaintiffs there on behalf of themselves in a class asserted contract law claims under nevada state law asserted violations of the nevada minimum wage amendment and also asserted  and other shepherds to nevada w r a acted as a joint employer with the various ranches that are members of the w r a and under the h two a visa regulations the contract continues to exist between did they enter into a contract because they were contracts in the record but i didn't see w r a is a party to any of those contracts one of the former parties on submitted the contracts that it regulations you have well st of all of course the contract because there can be joint employers and you are a is a joint lawyer in the circle of joint employer doesn't necessarily mean you have a contract i mean you can be a joint employer and have no contract at all with someone regulations i am i apologize your honor i will have to check the specific site on that because that had actually not been contested any point in the proceedings to date and so i don't have a citation to that with me  create a contract and your theory on breach of contract was that the employer agreed to abide by regulations which would include a minimum wage correct  form is that based on regulatory implication of a contract or an actual contract the regulations state that this is this will act as a contract and specify what contract terms must right that's absolutely is there something in the record telling us which is higher here yes there was no dispute the having a one dollar twenty five cents cent per hour minimum wage was higher well there there was an argument about how many hours were work so so a twenty five dollars for eight hours a day is that higher than the a w r is as in the record yes you can actually just do the math and it is higher and i would say your honor that even at eight hours a day that's fifty six hours a week and at fifty six hours a week with the nevada minimum wage we established that there's more than five million dollars in damages at issue that's if there were six  because i thought there was a there was an argument there it was only six months a year that wasn't that was a clear mistake made by the district judge we specifically stated that we were including in our calculation only the nevada certifications for those who were in nevada year round the individuals who were certified for california and only spent half the year in nevada we excluded from our calculation entirely so  we gave the citation to the to the government website from which we extracted those records and the district court found in this is excerpts of record at page eight that each year within the two to your statute of limitations there were one hundred dollars or more i thought of that that i didn't see where he said and they were twelve months in and nevada there was no evidence in the record of any of any nevada any discover your honor so there has not been evidence of that yet but if i may under you know me know we have to st make a good faith allegation and then if there is factual evidence to dispute that allegation we have to obviously meet that evidence however there has been no evidence put forward and nobody even argued that nevada certified shepherds were spending their time in any other state so so in terms of we don't know one way or the other there way correct there's been no evidence submitted that would support such a finding ok did the district court make factually terminations about that when he made credibility determinations about your own negations the district court did not consider the possibility of nevada shepard's working outside of nevada he did express concern that we had had included california shepherds who were only working half the year in fact as we specified in footnote  footnotes two to three of our nd amended complaint we specifically excluded those from our calculation in order to avoid making any sort of over count and so really what most of the parties focused on what the district court mostly focused on below was the disputed fact as between our claim based on the job order and the job duties specified there and that the shepherds were working twenty four hours a day and the argument from the l t a hahn declarations that they were only working eight hours a day the court doesn't need to resolve that issue because that eight hours a day fifty six hours a week we've shown that that we yield over five million dollars in damages nonetheless and that's without even including not only those california shepard's but it's without including the claims under nevada state law for not paying discharged employees their full wages due within thirty days of terminations and just to clarify that's for twelve months correct yes your honor and there is i believe they'll take on declarations show the declaration only declarations on the record actually show that those shepherds are working twelve months a year we also did not include in our calculation the contract claim damages for an reimbursed expenses for travel and visa costs also add to our damages so when you consider the entirety of the record including the undisputed facts it's clear that we reach over five million dollars in damages and therefore established half a jurisdiction and under the six year statute of limitation which this court's decision in rivera would state applies there's really been no dispute that under a six year statute have a jurisdiction to satisfy the district court itself only expressed a concern because of finding the det was appropriate and therefore started us down the path of of doing a more precise calculation for the two years but for six years it was just never an issue so in rivera the it's about the two year versus six years six year contract provision and what the court rivera found was that and i will say every single federal court we have found that addressed to a contract claims and state wage in our claims has come to the same conclusion which is the state wage and hour statue of limitations applies to this to the wage in our claims under statute and the contract statue of limitations applies under for your contract claim and that's not only what rivera said as to the contract claim there but also what which a federal court said we're going to apply a state wage and hour statute of limitations rather than the contract statue limitations ok you're down to about two and a half minutes you want to get to yes let me address that real question correct your honor we're required to establish that as part of proving the existence of our contract we're we're sure that we should prevail but the defendant has actually disputed this question so under the it's not in the regulations or it is in the regulations it is a mentally ill you're going to you're going to get back to me with that but undergone in grable where the issue is necessarily raised as it is here and where it is actually disputed and if you look at the record excerpts of that term but as this court decided in k two american corp what matters is whether the complaint on its face raises a federal question and not whether a specific statute is cited and indeed the court in that case is considered bases of federal  jurisdiction that had never been state set forth in the complaint and said that that was appropriate and that is the way courts traditionally look at jurisdictional issues if you look at what got into or it will require for raising a federal question all of the allegations in the complaint that meet those requirements are set forth in the nd amended complaint ok thank you thank you good morning your honor elena grad representing western range association i think that i completely agree that the nd in many complaint supersedes the st if you wish for me to speak about federal question jurisdiction i will i'm happy to do that i want to clarify a couple things a couple of questions that my counsel was not able to answer st of all the question came whether in fact there was anything in the record that indicated that the l t a hone plaintiffs in in particular deal worked half the year in california  occurred with that there were labor certifications for one hundred dollars or more the undisputed evidence is that the plaintiffs or in this case the appellant's numbers were off is there any evidence that the hundred shepherds who work for w r a l had job orders from them you are a marked only six months is there any evidence in the record that they worked only six months in the band knowing as was pointed out it is absolutely the plaintiff burden to show that to invoke federal court jurisdiction so you're saying there's no evidence either way there is the evidence in fact that was found was six undisputed approximately half their time in ca but they were certified opposing counsel says they were certified california whereas they're arguing about the shepherd to recertify nevada they were certified in their certifications job certifications for nevada now a job certification does not mean that somebody works in a vat it often works that way but not exclusively and the reason is the job certification is is clearly applied floor it's a different agency and it occurs approximately three months before it's a projection how much l t hoeing thinks it's going to need in terms of h two a workers and so the job certification is attained it may never be filled and there is nothing in the record to show that any of the herders that the plaintiffs are attempting to make into this class were ever employed in the state of nevada at all let alone half the time but there are allegations in the complaint taking the miss true for purposes of this  declaration from him we don't have any declaration or evidence from an e herder except the six from l to hone why aren't the department of labor certifications reliable and if your argument is correct isn't that an issue later for class certification they are reliable in the number of class certifications that are issued but there are a number of reasons why a class certification can be obtained and never used and that would mean that it's obtained but it doesn't necessarily represent a herder in the student another reason and that is that you may obtain labor certifications and due to fires pestilence any of any of the things that can affect mother nature you don't need that many herders there is not evidence in this case as to how many herders were in that there is simply evidence as to how many labor certifications were  now because it is uncontested right now that the numbers that were utilized to obtain or to attempt to obtain kaffir jurisdiction were off and therefore the labor certifications as noted by judge jones below are simply indications of how many department of labor and u s c i s labor certification issued not used now if every labor certification applied to the herder in the state and there's no evidence whatsoever in the record as to that then you would be exactly right but the case is that there are labor certifications they are issued and they may or may not and it's not a factual question because the plaintiff some selves have submitted no evidence whatsoever all they have his allegations i disagree to the extent that there is absolutely no evidence in the record as you yourself pointed out a joint employer is not necessarily a contractual employer in this case  so they argue the regulations by the end of the regulations a contract excess by virtue of the regulations the h two a regulations do not rise to the level of a tariff which would for case those provide guidelines they do not provide a contract they are not a contract and most significantly they do not provide a private cause of action that is why the two year statute of limitations under the minimum wage amendment as alleged by the appellant in this case is what would govern this particular action not a six year contractual statute of limitations perhaps we'd be having a different conversation if there were a contract that we were looking at between l to hone and steel but not only was that contract never put into the record that contract is no longer before this court we're talking about western association so i'm happy to talk about the two year statute of limitations i think that the reliance on the rivera case is absolutely misplaced for two reasons number one the a ranch case involving onions now i knew sheep what's the difference why would it matter the difference is that sheep are on the range sheep what we're talking about  range herders and it it's a different animal altogether forgive the pun but most significantly this one g s the defense in terms of what statute of limitation applies was the plaintiffs had control of their pleadings and the nd in many complaint alleged causes of action under the minimum wage amendment nevada's minimum wage amendment rights but they also they also asserted a breach that a six year statute applies because the nevada supreme court in perry specifically stated that when you are attempting to recover unpaid wages based upon the failure to pay the nevada minimum wage under the constitution pardon under the nevada cost yes absolutely didn't do with this question the nd perry case the nd perry case was also based upon a contract although the issue there was whether it was a two year statute of limitations or a four year three year four year statute limitations based upon fraud however the minute the entire field of the minimum wage and whether the accurate wages were paid was addressed by the perry versus terrible herbst case in the sense that if the grovel a minute of the action is the failure to pay wages whether you call it a breach of contract action whether you call it a tort action whatever you call it the two year statute of limitations applies to claims is contract wage for unpaid minimum wages and that is what the court below found accurately and that is what the perry vs terrible herbst case says as well at most however at most sixty six year statute of limitations to your statue of limitations there is still no evidence that in fact there was anything being paid that was less than what was required under the a wor was required under the minimum wage amendment whether you're looking at state law whether you're looking at the regs whether you're looking at the statutes there is still no evidence and because it is the plaintiffs attempting to invoke the jurisdiction under the calf they bear the burden and they simply have failed to do so in fact the undisputed evidence is that they cannot meet that burden whether it's two years or whether it's six years it is not a factual question it is a legal question because based upon their own math their own allegations and the way they have presented this case and chosen to bring this nevada case in a nevada court under the nevada minimum wage amendment they have controlled exactly where we're going and where we are going is number one a two year statute of limitations and number two no cafe jurisdiction period because under cafe that's a math problem do they have one hundred it found that there were in excess of one hundred labor certifications issued and by flik note to the district court's decision the district court said these are  statistics are not evidence and it is the plaintiffs burden to assert facts and evidence to invoke kaffir jurisdiction plaintiff has not done so in this case i'm just going to end i'm i see my time is almost endless are other questions of course in this particular matter it's it's about burden of proof it's about these legal standard that is required to be applied just to invoke katha jurisdiction and it is about plaintiffs she was saying for reasons i cannot explain and i'm not going to speculate to bring this in a federal court when it is in fact based on the nevada minimum wage amendment thank you counsel welcome i give you two minutes we're  thing from the supreme court of nevada did not address contract claims at all it tells us nothing about the political statute of limitations for the contract claims here and as i said under the six year statute we've heard nothing to suggest that there's any basis to find less than five million dollars in damages even as to the two years calculation there was evidence that from the from the department of labor website of what the records are of the number of certifications in range from one hundred and seventy three herders certified to work in nevada in two million fourteen  certification is an assertion by w r a that the had work that needed to be done that us workers were not available to take on such work and that therefore permission was needed to bring in a worker so one hundred and seventy three was martin's as if three votes and well over one hundred on now how of those we don't know how many were actually hired or there'd be no reason to go through the certification in fact it would be i think lying to the department of labor to say we absolutely can't find u s workers for the work that needs to be done and then the work didn't need to be done it would it would be remarkable for the organization to you know that there might be one or two that didn't get used but that there would be any significant number not used when that certification is being made to the department of labor is a remarkable supposition to me without any evidence from the record i did also just want to get back to judge according to your question about what job will be deemed to be a contract and further that in the if there is a written contract which does not include all of the required terms between both the employer employee that the regulation is off limits that contract right here there is a contract but but with one of the employers and then there that's all we have in the record right so right there is there anything that shows that any workers were working without a contract such any order but you're saying there's two contracts even when there's a work contract could have you know there's nothing in the regulations supporting that because each employer must have in it a contract with the employee and the contract that l t han entered into cannot satisfied of your ease obligation and as and and further the contract in the record doesn't contain all the required terms and the regulation i cited states that the regulations supplement and supplant that contract rather than the