and what's required of an employer to list on wage statements for each and every employee and number two resprayed class policies and certification when the plaintiffs dock even the proper opportunity to develop recertification discovery just go with the way stayman claims st on that claim will be helpful just i'm only one of three but if you could discuss waiver opposing counsel argues that this claim is waves could you go to short yes appellate definitely can can go on appeal and discuss the dismissal of the way statement claim what she did is she expressly preserved her right to appeal this issue because she expressed to preserve her right to appeal the certification denial but she and gave to deny that wage statement claim and any meaningful review of those grounds including response means a discussion on the missile issue and therefore the right believe before the court and we're discussing the weight statements because as you know are nine categories of information that are required to be listed on an employee's pay stub and the one id issue now is the address of the entity that is the legal entity of the employer and i know that's a mouthful but basically what we're saying is that the information acquired on these wage statements don't necessarily include only appeal box address for the corporate entity get an ambiguity on this point that the number one we have two agencies the l w da and the d l s see in charge of interpret ing in a forcing the labor code and they have determined the exact opposite of the district court deference are they owed well they are o statute and you have the elder a letter which as you know thank you for correcting your violation but has no interpretation and so you're asking us so i didn't see any authoritative interpretation by the agency  because they were trying to figure out if the agency has ever said you know how it is to be interpreted in the form of of any kind of official guidance as opposed to how they've actually applied it practice if you just answer that question there's sure there's no interpretive guide or official guide on that matter here in the records instead what we have is an undisputed record that shows a rightly reissued way statements that solely have the post office box and instead they reissued them to include the specific physical street to as a matter of law how the address really helps when it's in missouri and it could be a gravel yard or it could be one that is there's nothing that says you have to have agents there there's nothing that says you have to accept a process so other than a theoretical argument what does an address in missouri that might have nothing to do with wages whatsoever what does that get you realistically well realistically the statute wasn't the purpose of the statute wasn't intended to only apply to some employer that has it's place of business at missouri and has another place a business somewhere else the statute is meant to apply everywhere broadly for the protection of employees and that means you can't simply just walk up to appeal box and ask questions of the employer you can't make oral requests for a record inspection yes it allows for record expection and has said you can make a written and oral request and you have to call up the employer and ask him it can appoint and to review the records so that would be an oral request correct yes or in person would be an oral quest but you certainly can't do that at a post office box you used to have your time and for i'm really interested to hear about your argument about denial of discovery ok yes as you know he what the court did was plaintiff submitted move actually the parties submitted joint stipulations to the district court saying here's the case we will know when those two requests were denied the stipulated request for extension of time were reasons you know there was no reason given not in the in writing but with any kind of court proceeding hearing it was denied you see a stamp of denial it's on the record for those stipulations but par that here is that the court basically told the plaintiff even though she provided the super lation which she detailed and in fact one specific section of the stipulation in title preset of occasion discovery it goes for over a page long ication because she contends of bears upon the commonality and predominance of the labor code issues among class members as a whole and requests seem to drift off into looking for thirty  o'reilly subsequent to the st the st request she moved for classification based on the fact that the court had already denied that because she put her best foot forward under the strict ninety day deadline for a shot in a race a gain or or say that she needed more time for discovery i think that the court gave her a month to have a supplemental brief after the deadline did she say that she needed more time on notice that you needed access to this class sort of occasion discovery it was in the main joint stipulation that was filed with the court that detailed exactly the long process that it takes ok in order then that was denied and then again applied in this case are can you can you speak to that yes in fact that's the heart of the matter here because that now defunct rule was applied strictly by the district court that does work hard plaintiffs where do we see that he that the district court followed this rule it's set this rule such force the ninety day deadline and so the plaintiff was required they all these to relation to asked to push that out the court said no and i understand you correctly that when you said now defunct you know it wasn't  this time is right and abs came out after this exactly and that's the whole point of this here because the district court did not have the benefit of the guidance from the th circuit who now struck down the exhaust exact process that happened here and so  plaintiff had to file her class certification motion within that strict ninety day deadline and she did so and that's precisely what happened in the end yes case that plaintiff also filed had to file her certification on that deadline even though the court presupposition discovery which she had asked for installation and the district court here do not have the benefit of that and since that has gone forward if you look up the rules the local rules are sister central district twenty three three today you'll see that that rule no longer applies and in fact it mirrors rule twenty three dollars which provides a more flexible approach counsel on on the question of what you would have done or could have done if you had had more time for discovery is there any statement by anyone including the name client herself that anybody ever didn't get a rest break under the proper standard that is between six and eight hours and you only got one break instead of two you would think that the the claimant herself and you know a friend or two would have been able to say that that happened at some point issue on the p l o box case i think you've all hit the nail on the head that at the end of this case there was a consent judgment where the plaintiff dismissed her individual claims dismissed her class action claims and expressively preserved a right to appeal the motion for class certification and the motion for summary judgment there was no preservation of the right to appeal the motion to dismiss you think a pretty back door when you consent to a judgment you ordinarily don't have the right to appeal from it with her she didn't consent to this ruling she lost this no understand but when you consent to a judgment you can only appeal from that judgment if you express discretion in deeming that class claim moot by virtue of the motion to dismiss that's really all this court can analyze or talk for abuse of discretion we're talking about preservation understand that and then i guess my point is question about what the local rule says now i actually brought it and it says at the earliest possible time after service of a pleading purporting to commence a class action other than an action subject to something irrelevant securities act but no later than any deadline set by the assigned judge the proponent of a class action must follow a motion for certification that the action is maintainable so it gives the court discretion to set the deadline they deem reasonable well and here's where i would beg to differ with that conclusion if you look at the stipulation is we just went through the the st tip elation was in august august nd i believe and there is some what i considered wrote reference to getting contact information the evidence shows that on august st o'reilly responded to that discovery and said look we as soon as we send out of bellaire west privacy notice will give you that contact s case in most cases the plaintiff in those cases filed motions with the court explaining to the court here's what i need here's why i need it and here's how it will impact the motion because he she after the nd stipulation was denied well the nd simulation was submitted on the day the brief was due would have been pretty tough to file a motion which you could afford the motion between august and september and here's the other point that out ultimately did once the plaintiff submitted this joint will once we both submitted the nd stipulation and we both said hey we've got some scheduling problems the court gave plaintiff more time modified the ninety day rule allowed supplemental briefing she asked in an inner auditory for the information the response that i already gave was once we do a bell or west privacy notice you will get it and i don't know if you're all familiar with the bell or west case from that point forward the yes correct that typically what happens in these class cases the parties that work together to develop a bel air west notice submit it to the court for approval because it impacts privacy rights the court will approve the notice of the notice will go out you west notice you needed to get together which required both exact well and not and i not once did they ever do that and what's telling in this regard and i don't think we mentioned this in our briefing i think the most striking evidence it's our position that the plaintiffs are coming in here asking for discovery they never even wanted or needed because they felt the plaintiffs felt that if you look at their briefing if you look at the entire docket their theory in this case was a facially violet's of policy on its face was enough to get sort of the case and we don't need evidence that it was implemented in practice that was the argument they advanced of the trial court that's part of the argument they advanced here in this court if you look at the summary judgment motion we brought so in may of two thousand and eighteen it's docket number sixty nine dollars we end up bringing a motion for summary judgment on the hog or representative claim right once the class was denied there was still this pod a representative claim on behalf of the state of california and the same group of employees now aggrieved employees instead of pieces of class members and the basis of the motion was the plaintiffs doesn't i have any evidence that any aggrieved employee was denied a respirator now in that intervening six months you would think if the plaintiffs thought they needed more than the facially bought a policy and really felt they needed evidence of practice practice evidence like all the cases say you need they would have gone out and got it but guess what when they oppose our motion for summary judgment on pog they doubled down and once again they said we court deny this motion for summary judgment because of the s was practice evidence that complied with the law well but i guess my point is that this idea that they were denied discovery and had they had it it might have altered the outcome of the class vacation motion from my perspective having litigated this case is nonsense they raised it one time in an early stipulation casually and then never raised it again not in the nd stipulation not in opposition to the motion when they opposed the most in for class i'm sorry when they brought the motion for class certification there's a declaration of counsel nowhere in there does he say hey if i can go out and do this or get this or do that here's how it will impact the motion court and here's why it's important for you to address commonality they now seem to say that the complaint itself says that she never got resprayed and that's not true if you look at paragraph thirty one dollars of the complaint what it says i california law it does it does say that if you look at the declaration that was submitted by the plaintiffs in support of the motion for class certification as the court pointed out the evidence that she submitted doesn't even reference missing a rest break paragraph four says during my employment with o'reilly i recall sometimes working a shift between six and eight hours i'm not aware of premiums she was denied a rest break right you can't violate the law with words on it is negative pregnant in there in the sense of should that be read to include the negative pregnant that i didn't get the break well that the breaks is that the only evidence that's a that's a do is to support the class motion of a common injury because i know wal mart tells us we're supposed to this was an injury that's  evidence was there of injury to the class there was none but actually there is her statement there's the thirty six testimony right well there's thirty of the cases it's and that has to do with the two handbooks there isn't a denial that they had a uniform not understanding and the reason that there isn't discovery is because she never advanced it because the plaintiff made the strategic decision in the trial court on the postulate motion and in opposition the motion for summary judgment fourteen months into case that i can establish liability on a common basis class a representative just by basis of the facial allegedly facially volatile policy and no more that's the position the plaintiff took from day one it's time frame for discovery is all right but we also have one time when she asked in early august and when they submitted their supplement with the court gave them time to do the depositions they submitted that supplemental brief right and then they submitted another declaration so now you get a declaration a counsel with a motion a declaration a counsel with the supplemental brief not once did they say hey your honor by the normally jointly repaired but the plaintiff advances that look is the defendant if they've asked me for names and i said let's get a bill or west notice and i'll give you names am i going to be the one to go in advance that if if the plaintiff wants to get contact information for the employees the plaintiffs always advance that cause if in fact they want to get that contact information and the fact that they never sought it throughout the entirety of this litigation to me speaks volumes about the fact that they never thought they needed it because they relied upon some state court cases that i think are bad law especially in light of the cotch a case that we side in our supplemental brief that you could rely just upon paper and words on paper don't violate the law so i would submit that if you look at the courts now discretion to manage the calendar and compare it to these other cases where the lawyers came forward with declarations not just a joint still but a declaration that said here's what i need here's why i need it here's what it will prove and here how it's relevant to the motion know i understand that initially but then she abandoned it the other stipulations never sought it at all it was all about other stuff and she never throughout the entirety of this litigation not once did plaintive try and get these declarations  there's two issues we can address right now st we want even talking about a bell and one bell or west notice is plaintive hadn't put that before the court as something that is imperative and needed to be sent out to the class when in fact they did say that they would supply a sampling of the class list they did so at the end of august and her classification motion deadline was looming that next month in september she detailed for the court in her stipulation why that was not enough time even way back when the sybil ation happened in early august there certainly wasn't enough time to get that vello west noticed out to have thirty days for the class members at a minimum to respond whether or not they wanted the disclosure of their contact information and then time to actually go out and interview these witnesses we wouldn't be talking about that at all if not because the plaintiff in fact did put that it is she when told the court she needed this for certification and secondly the opposing counsel says it wasn't followed up on it was just  plaintiff had already been asked and answered she already asked the court what can i do here i desperately need this and the court said no the court did not push out the deadline for her and then secondly we're talking about priest certification discovery not what's happened since certification she was not granted enough time to develop that skill discovery to support her motion and the court turned around and said you lack the evidence to support your motion that's a clear abuse of discretion and going back to the paragraphs in her in the sac operative complaint is paragraph fifty four and paragraph fifty five which says and i quote throughout her employment plaintive regularly has not received any rest periods during her shifts ok please yes yes all right so just based on a b s and there's a clear abuse of discretion parents and that's in the complaint but not in the declarations and right in the declaration which must be read with all of her allegations she mentions that she doesn't receive the premiums and that's because she didn't receive h is there it just legally is there any difference on class certification between that is can you stand on what's in your complaint even if it's not supported by any de you asked for class certification well the point here is the she wasn't even entitle to get the priest certification discovery to get the class member declaration not just as i knew it but so that she perhaps i'm assuming for these purposes that i don't agree with you as to what the declaration means by legal question is is a complaint alone you know for summary judgment if you look at some things afterwards is class certification the same or can you rely strictly on the complaint i think the court relies on everything that's before it when it rules on class certification and here there wasn't enough to evidence she wasn't allowed to get that evidence to support her class