the little boy is our next case we're considering the deal with  twenty six ninety nine they promptly filed their own complaint in this case so there was no lachie s and robert newman was an absolute class member in that case and then in  law because the state knew that in the casket case a class representative for hiring claims erin booker had filed you know c charges and got a right to sue under which apparently reacted to that state's crime that he didn't file you'll see charges by filing an oral motion to voluntarily dismiss one plane at this point it is in the singular there was no hearing hell on and that's it that's the entry of eleven seventeen nine hundred ninety nine which that's key order in this case there was an under the entry for that date shows there was no hearing there was no conference and if you go backwards the judge at the time the magistrate judge had always indicated where the if there was a conference or hearing and  seems to be arguing well if there was a procedural misstep in the closing the kind of thing that might have led to a timely appeal for example or maybe even a timely rule sixty motion there we should act as if the closing never occurred ok judge i respectfully disagree there was no closing i under the law at the time to close a class a putative class action there had to be a hearing there had to be a judicial determination that that's just an argument that it was an error to close the case ok that there was what what makes you think the case was not in fact close even if by a legal error ok we know there was really no voluntarily dismissal because the case be reopened another ten years from now it was never closed all the time yes all that happened was never close all that happened was the plaintiff's attorney nearly panicked and misled his clients to think that the case shouldn't have been closed because the legal requirements for closing were not met it wasn't look we were in the business of hearing appeals most appeals take the form the district court dismiss this case but he shouldn't have and here's why but we don't have any doubt that it was dismissed right you're saying if the district court should have dismissed the case then it wasn't discussed and the case just goes on even continue to the court doesn't have any obligation to independently you know ask why this isn't going on and we don't know what happened i'm eleven seventeen there's no indication of a conference there's no transcript there's no indication of a hearing al sense minute order just like in the baker case that said one plaintiff closed and not the other one so there's nothing to fear in this court disagrees with any prejudice to the government in this case to the intervene in this case the underlying case which has been closed for over a decade cannot be reopened for three reasons first the underlying case was voluntarily dismissed in one thousand nine hundred nine and so has been exact same conduct complained of in his intervention motion and third newman's intervention motion is untimely since he has slept on his rights for fifteen years and said the doctrine of latches applies thus defendants apple e can urban case was a voluntary early dismissed on nov eighteenth of one nine hundred ninety nine as can be seen on the record on page thirty that notice says plaintiff's oral motion to dismiss this case without prejudice pursuant to federal rule of civil procedure forty one a is granted it was an order that was interred by a magistrate judge intervenor newman cannot intervene in this case because it is closed it was closed in november and it was most certainly closed by twenty fifteen when he brought his intervention motion to come in and see january of two thousand with a sixty p motion or you meant that the kinds of over objections to the procedural course of the class member there wasn't a class certification and there was judicial approval in this case no no wait a second though he's he was within the scope of the class that was alleged correct correct so he's entitled at that point at least while the case is on foreign oil maybe it's a legal fiction but it's one million dollars for purposes of statute of limitations and other things to go to he's allowed to basically sit back and watch and then he he checks periodically and you see the counting on these folks to to represent my interests and wait a minute voluntary motion to dismiss no hearing no notice no nothing what's going on here i don't want to think that there's a bright line of that closure in november seventy thousand nine hundred ninety nine to me it's a fuzzier why even though it's seems to me we're well past it yes and there's actually a couple of different dates under any or any of those states and this case to be closed that's because newman was a part of the class action in crocky and so he's actually litigated these claims against the illinois state police and received all of his relief and so at least by as i s two thousand and three he should have moved to intervene and for over a decade now in the reply brief filed by mr newman the state is accused confusion between the make an urban case and the costly case that was actually caused by the costly attorney and as this court held ambition there was a lot of confusion about what kinds of damages were going to be available in the co litigation the cost to litigation was asking for equitable relief which was back pay and also the chance to sketch an entrance examination but they kept throwing around the term damages meaning actual damages when in reality should not have been brought as a twenty three d to class action but should have been brought as a twenty three b three class action for damages but because of all the confusion it was difficult for the judge below and for the lawyers to really keep up with what was going on and so confusion isn't fraud and for it to the extent that counsel has argued that we have said different things in different appeals when it pertains to the single filing doctor and the state is allowed to pursue a different litigation strategy in different cases and that is most certainly not fraud either police the same issues are raised in the costly litigation and to the extent that they weren't they should have been raised in addition newman's motion is fired by the doctrine of latches those who sleep on their rights aren't going to  issues that were actually raised and those that could have been raised and counsel should have asked for those damages in that faction of the know where that that sounds like you're trying retroactively to say something that was filed as a twenty three b two should since you cannot pursue a twenty three b two class without at the same time implicitly resolving the separate damages claims that would undermine your ability to pursue the b two class then you're creating some real procedural traps in the class action board seems to me so that the notion that you could have brought a issues of it whether anybody could have just looked at the opinion but is the statute of limitations told you no computers are going to punitive class action is filed until the class matter is closed or until those absent class members find out about the ultimate disposition of the matter ok the research the dance shows that you go by illinois law about what the statute of limitation even is and since it was a judgment these people have twenty years to go collect on the judgment so but their issue was never raised in the in the district court because they never said what statue intention they were talking about