state farm insurance and for monetary settlements ok mr hundred let me ask you a question about the nature of the just reports so the district court says that it's just miss the case quote with prejudice although it's a standing still but i think what the district court really wanted was i'm just missing on the basis of lack of standing without giving you permission to file yet another amended complaint so there's sort of without prejudice in the sense so i'm resolved i'm not resolving the merits versus without prejudice  missed because these people don't have standing to sue somebody else might have standing to sue in principles of claiming issue preclusion working the way they do that could be consequential on this matter of fact if i'm remembering correctly you weren't the right people to be doing it right i think that what's important here as far as command is whether or not there's a substantive issue that cannot be cured in which there's the robson case which the court  that but i think the reason why there isn't a set number of you only get three amendments you only get four amendments is because it really depends on the facts of the case and if this were our fourth try or third try out an automobile collision complaint i think that the to go on the medicare website and you would see right away that it was h o h p that was the party in question right i'm glad you brought that up judge i'd like to address that particular issue this arose from the from the decision that happened a few days earlier out of the southern district of florida and one of the issues that was brought up in that case was this notion of the medicare website and whether that was a thermometer an indicator of whether someone was a proper party to bring in an m s p cause of action and it's our position that it's not that the issue wasn't before the court in this case but whether or not that an entity is a medical is a is an m a o i directly contract with the government or as a first year downstream entity is a more complicated issue that was also before that judge is up on appeal to the eleventh circuit as to who qualifies as the proper party to bring that cause of action but in this particular case the context that has to be taken into consideration and that frankly the district court health plans and our client human spirit coverage l c engaging in a client relationship that had been done over and over again with many different medicare advantage organizations and has been done so  it was the one word identification of what interest is was the mistake that brought brings everything before the court you're not arguing now that h e p's as you allege that in the second amendment complaint it isn't and they  that you you did that that's not what the record shows you certainly brought the factual information and the assignment before the court but you didn't proceed to only seek leave to file a third event a complaint or attach medic complaint correcting the factual errors well that is correct we never sought the of that what we did was follow the court's instruction which was to follow to file the supplemental pleadings to explain what it was happening in response to the courts rule to show cause as to why there shouldn't be sanctions imposed but it's important to recognise that when these parties sat down in a restroom in the wrong that the same individual scientists name on behalf of the wrong of the two sister corporate entities that that occurrence took place along with that massive data exchange in which our sophisticated client that was in business to process and identify these claims took that  did what it does with with regard to finding out when and in what instances in this instance state farm believes underpay claims and that's how we've benchley selected r y as the exemplar which is simply the shell the district court that they're standing to like had any idea and there was nothing in the history of how these two companies interacted that would have raised a red flag nor we could look back and say you know what that was the point we should've realized that there was something wrong and that the medicare stranger companies absolutely in the sense that we're not saying you know it we've talked about it maybe it's about example we're not saying that we're mcdonald's we're actually burger king it's it is one individual on behalf of these two entities and not only is it one person for yeah right does all the administration and so that person might healer the c e o of health first administer plans and health first health plans is used to want to day to day basis doing everything for this company including on anybody's radar it was the biggest surprise to everybody that that mistake made and certainly in retrospect although we've argued you know that there's agency in that you know ways in which to show that if this this is all about one word if that and you had been on just for monts fact the defendants were challenging the standing in this case and yet you didn't go and confirm these factional issues well i mean just to clarify we were on  you know pioneering cases the reason that there's so much contention here is because we are trying to upset the status quo as to how and like state farm reimburse medicare advantage organizations  not actually ruled on that particular issue but to to go back to the issue of notice we've approached these cases obviously across the country as to how to properly allege them because we didn't want to involve individual medicaid medicare advantage beneficiaries and a lawsuit that that isn't about them frankly that seems to be part of the difficulty the district court had though because the information is coming to the district court  through the posing counsel and some affidavit that's been filed in another quit in another case well again as far as the notification of this mistake with regard to the health first into t's there's no doubt that the timeline is that  mistake that you wouldn't sanction somebody for making it number two a district court might choose to exercise it's just question to allow that last amendment but that's a discretionary matter i think that's a closer call oh and i wonder to what extent you know is this that you could have a causation theory you have a redress abilities theory you could say you aren't the entity who's been hurt so you haven't suffered eighteen order dismissed the first amended complaint and basically instructed plaintiffs is that you need to connect the dots in order to establish spand to show and mayo and a medicare benefi also argue that the health first administrative company could be deemed to have to pay the the amount in question theories are all the ex post arguments i'm trying to look at anti you know what's what actually pulled in this litigation what are you making yes they're standing arguments but they're not the same one and then this new one shows up in march and april and again it's a certainly it's a problem there's no doubt in my mind about that but what's the solution you know to sanction to allow amendment or to say no amendments but now at this point let the chips fall where they may there are different things that district court could have done well the district court was also understood and this was part of the court's order and the related and mail cases that standing related entities same human being you know acting from both of them it does strike me as at least from an equitable standpoint and the sanctions have something to do with equity a rather different situation i would read that as judge me giving strict instructions as to what he was expecting with the second amended complaint and not in those instructions not being followed not only that but when this issue was company not the m a o let's take supplemental briefing and see where we go from here and you know what happened with that briefing they didn't raise their hand and said we got it wrong that these entities are intertwined it's the same person they good faith argument that seemed to be what was behind the sanction would you agree with that i believe that yes that was in fact the court's own opinion that's something the effect of with this auto example the auto owner supplemental briefing instruction which is you know tell me what's wrong with this case and what are you going to do about it and they didn't respond to that they were they were dancing around that shoot no doubt because they knew that standing needed to be established at the time the lawsuit was filed and if they were to acknowledge they got the wrong and they go they would have known at that point in time the case would have been dismissed on of agency would certainly report support that right so responsible leadership will try to salvage that complaint that way recognizing as you argue that it might be too late for now proton that might be too late for other kinds of cu say well that private positive action was certainly a threshold question perhaps but what if what was also a threshold question is whether the district court whether it be the southern district of illinois or there is a private right of action looking at the third circuit and the eleventh circuit we did not have any opportunity to respond or to rebut that but now now we do we filed across  with regard to just sort of closing up this issue about the sanctions for which we haven't really talked that directly about the issue of frustration and what can be done to cure that is an entire listing it's redacted from the actual beneficiaries names here but that was provided to state farm of all the other times in which they've been reporting for potential claimants and also within the record  as this was brought to the fore was the ability to narrow those down to other exemplar claimants so we had the ability to make those changes if it's necessary if i may just on the one thing if the court is