good morning honors though each scanner for the appellant state of arizona and arizona attorney general's office and i would like to reserve three minutes of time for about the state of arizona through the air as an attorney general regularly exercises the clause i sovereign progressives to initiate consumer fraud lawsuits seeking civil penalties on behalf of the state and restitution on behalf of the arizona consumers just as the attorney general of the state of arizona has standing to initiate those consumer fraud lawsuits so too does the is turning general in the state of arizona have standing here to intervene and pursue this appeal the settlement here causes an injury in fact to the state of arizona through the air and exercise it will hear through the arizona attorney general that harm is agreement that there needs to be article three standing for both mandatory and permissive intervention we definitely agree your honor that it i true for military intervention and we are will accept that for we believe that we satisfy that even for permissive intervention although we recognize that that question has not yet entirely been answered by this court but we do believe that we mee that standard regardless of whether it is under mandatory or permissive intervention and what is the injury to the state the state's injury is both to the arizona consumers whose interests are heard here and state serves as interest in particular as evidenced by consumer fraud statute lawsuits but also the resolution of the settlement could well bar future cause i sovereign claims brought by the state in particular restitution claims brought the our consumer fraud statute courts  crossed some courts including in the th circuit held the absence of intervention in a consumer fraud a class action settlement would bar the state from bringing a future claim for restitution on behalf of consumers in addition were the court to bless this settlement and it would become final that would be a judicial premature on any of the negotiations that went on and might otherwise bar a future claim by the state so it's both a harm to consumers and then that flows up not only to the idea that we have to protect those consumers but it would literally run the risk of foreclosing any future acquires a sovereign action brought by the state through the attorney general and his i'm interested in your analogy to civil penalties seems like the state ought to be able to bring in foresman actions to enforce its laws and to give civil penalties seems like they have standing for that is going to be sufficient in the context of a private suit you can just go in and i mean the this is the state couldn't force penalties on negligent actions by regulated party does that mean that the state can object to an ordinary torts settlement between a private between private parties it with me and have standing to do that where we're the only benefit is that the plaintiff is going to get paid more i think it would be very different case where this in individual tort plaintive but certainly in the context of class actions so you're saying it's just the fact that you can bring civil penalties for the same kind of activity would not give them standing to intervene in a private l i do you have cases that say the contrary i don't have cases that say to the contrary but i do say that the parents clause because i sovereign function of the state here is particularly triggered given the aggregate nature of the litigation and the number of arizona is that are affected this would be a potential if it was a class action toward action and there probably be i think i would definitely agree or are they in a class action toward action if settlement results in harm to arizona consumers would foreclose a claim or run the risk of foreclosing the claim by the state through the attorney general that's what's your best case for candidly that's the most for me the most difficult part of this case the best and i then and the arguments is a question that we certainly believe gives a standing enough but i think it's important that under our consumer fraud statute it's but civil penalty just the fact that you can you would have standing if you sought civil penalties in the forstmann action where the money that you got would go to state have any problem with that that seems like he certainly you can do that people and states do that right to do that but that does that follow to the next step which is they can go into a private action and have standing to challenge when the when the tort plaintiff for instance doesn't appeal but they can appeal and say that or plaintiff should have got more that seems to me if that were the law we would see he would have some case you could rely on where that where that happened i think one of the crucial components runners it's not just the ability for the state to seek civil penalties under a statute but to seek restitution to benefit arizona consumers we regularly do that where the result of our claim is money flowing directly to arizona a s a result is under arrest or to shane or discouragement theory and so the best case under that line is it stands for this is the intelligent or case out of the th circuit where when a consumer  action settlement resolved and the state of california sought to bring a civil penalty and restitution claim on behalf of their residents the defendant brought a action seeking an injunction against the state and the th circuit concluded that because the state had received a calf notice because the state had not shown up to intervene and object to the settlement that the resolution of the class action claims barred the state from bringing a restitution theory against the company and that is exactly the kind of situation that we might run into in this case it is a very concrete harm here that we believe would warrant standing it just seems odd to me that we would say you have standing because you might be precluded if you didn't successfully intervene i mean it seems to put the apple before the cart before the horse something  why isn't the answer well that case didn't consider whether or not you would have had standing had you successfully had you tried to intervene bryant to the extent that the question is our interests implicated is there a threat from this litigation to the interests of the state to the extent that there are court opinions that conclude that the resolution of this case would extinguish our claims because the question intelligent it was not just oh you didn't intervene therefore you lost your claims it's this case resolves your claims and to the extent you had a dispute about what that resolution was you were supposed to resolve it by intervening because that's where your interest was implicated and so here to the senate but did that but did the th circuit consider whether or not you would have had standing to intervene that what year was the th circuit case was it before the supreme court resolved this question it was in two million two thousand and fourteen before standing was mandatory and before it is supreme court had articulated that you would need article three standing in order to intervene correct trying to get to the extent that they concluded so the threat may not be entirely real i agree or honor that if we were to go back and we would present the best arguments we possibly could in a future action for why this case wouldn't preclude a restitution claim but as the last chance and as courts view it there is certainly the risk that resolution of these claims which we believe harm arizona consumers would also effectively bar a cause of action available to the state and that harm would flow to the state and it's possible that that we might agree that that shouldn't happen or that that might not be guaranteed but all we need to show is that we have an interest that in that is not merely theoretical and i believe that we've met that standard here on these facts with these merits but also in light of the circuit we are in and the courts that have come before ok well thank you mr skinner your time for good morning may please the court james burnham here on behalf of the united states and thank you to the court for allowing us to participate today the settlement issue provides essentially no value to the class members while furnishing more than three million dollars in cash to class counsel name plaintiffs and administrative costs just as in this court's opinion in re dry max papers which i definitely commend to the panel the quote reality is that this settlement benefits class council vastly more than it does the consumers who comprise the class and that's it page seven hundred and twenty one dollars of the court's opinion both rule twenty three dollars and kava require that coupon settlements like this be fair adequate and reasonable this settlement is not and it was therefore error to approve but i'd like to begin if i could by just describing the settlement because i think to simply describe the settlement shows what i'm interested to know we could concede everything you're saying right here and if arizona doesn't have standing it doesn't matter so i'm wondering does the united states have a position on we don't we don't your honor we don't have a position on whether arizona has standing here one observation though that i would i would just make is that you know one of the things that i think is different in the catholic context from your typical parents patrick lawsuit the absent arizona ins are parties to the case so there are people in arizona who are actually parties to the case who clearly would have standing if they personally cam and so it's a little it's a little different than your typical parents patrick is normally what you have and we see this at the federal government level all the time is a state coming in and saying that you know this or that federal thing hurts our citizens and therefore we the state can sue you this is a little different because the citizens are actually in the case already they just haven't you know because of the way class actions work in the inertia and the transaction costs and all that they haven't actually come to do anything so i don't we don't have a position as you can imagine for the federal government this is a sort of knotty issue and so we just haven't been able to kind of worked through it all but i do think that observation may be useful as the united states ever sought to intervene in a cafe action no your honor we have not sought to intervene on behalf of the federal government and one of these as far as i know certainly not in the last few years which is when our activity in these cases has uptick what do you think the purpose then is of the notice provision i think that's a great a great point judge bush i mean i don't know i mean it's clear if you look at katha that congress contemplated the governmental actors would do something right i mean called the whole point of cafe or not but one of the points of kappa was to deal with the agency problem you have in class actions and i assume i mean that's what it says that the notification requirement was like not just so that we could you know have the information and put it in a filing cabinet but so that we could do something if we hadn't had an issue with the settlement this is the st wife and it just obviously an invitation to consider facilitate amicus participation it that's another possible interpretation judge rogers and as i say i like you are today i it right no that's right your honor and i definitely am not likely to as likely to do it if they don't get notice i agree with everything you just said your honor the only point i would make and again i want to be clear that we really don't have a position on this is you know the  problem with these with these class actions right is that most people do have no idea what's going on and they basically ignore them i mean in this case only zero point four percent of the class responded in any way to the notifications of thirteen thousand people out of three million two  means only thirteen thousand people even claimed the coupons which by the way forget about the details for a nd i think that tells you everything you need to know about how little value these coupons have and then only one hundred and forty odd objected so what about those the merits of the case i mean how does that play into i mean he have a case that's not going anywhere maybe getting pennies is better than enough well that may be but of course i don't think the plaintiffs here got pennies at all and so i'm happy to explain and i'll do it very quickly why i think the coupons are not even worth pennies so the coupons are seventy two dollars fifty cents off a product one of three products all three of the products cost one hundred fifty nine dollars or more and they must be the coupons can only be used in a direct purchase from tristar at the terms tristar sets which are the least sixteen dollars ok that's what the product costs most of these consumers original purchases in this is in the planet's own fim ocean at district court docket one hundred and thirty three dollars page nineteen spent only one hundred dollars initially to buy a six court pressure cooker so what the coupon is doing is it's forcing them to upgrade their product to buy a more premium product from the defendant and it cost that even with the coupon is higher than they spend initially start yesterday or so i ask a question about the word redeem and calf and i'm not sure of the  proportion of cafe uses the word is actually apple here but i'm curious because the word redeem is sometimes used in the briefing is there any evidence how many of these coupons have been redeemed as opposed to obtained no your honor and one of the points you made in the district court is let's see how many of the thirteen thousand odd people what does the word redeem mean does that mean they asked for the coupon or does that mean they use the coupon to buy something the latter i mean i think the as they're certainly clear to me i think the plain meaning of the word redeem means you use it right claiming is getting it redeeming it is using it and the only thing that could possibly matter at all is the latter who cares how many people claim the coupons if they didn't do anything with them that means they didn't get any value out of them and then just not to sell it my guess but they are not these these coupons are nontransferable your honor exactly and so the only other point i would make on why the deal i think is just so is just so in dahlia seven was on its face the same products if you go to amazon and we make this point our briefs are offered cheaper with free shipping so the premium  the really fancy pressure cooker the one that the coupons are good for the ten court is fourteen thousand nine hundred and ninety nine with free shipping at amazon so if you compare that to the coupon price from tristar it's only a thirty three dollars fifty cents cent savings for the few people who actually want to go buy the premium pressure cooker after having gone through a class action about how their st pressure cooker the last premier not arguing really the consumer should get more because it's not real clear what more they should you're arguing that the attorney should get less well no so your honor the way i would think about it is if you look at the whole settlement there's about three million dollars in cash on the table there's two million two hundred thousand dollars in the settlement the district court approved for fees and cost of the lawyers and then there's another eight hundred and ninety thousand dollars up to that for claim administration costs so what i would suggest is that this allocation of value the real value the money needs to be commit portion all between the consumers that are it's a logical argument that is kind of after the fact right kind of looks at things after you determine what the attorney's fees are i mean when they're litigating it they don't know that there's not going to be any money that goes or very little money that goes to the parties but would they do your honor because the whole settlement is structured so that the class doesn't get anything i mean that's why the i assume that is why they picked the terms they picked because they wanted the class to get as little as possible and they wanted the people who were at the table the name plaintiffs in the council to get as much as possible there's a great judge posner opinion and i don't have the quote at my fingertips redmond versus radio shack corporate he makes that point which is that the incentive of the people at the table is always to stop the class right i mean they're not the class isn't there that's the whole agency problem that kathy is trying to help solve and so here if you you know look i don't know if these claims are strong or weak but it was who is actually hurt by such as the people whose claims are extinguished you've got three million two hundred thousand people who've lost their claims and they're not getting anything for that they're getting a coupon they're basically getting a promotional coupon to buy a more expensive product where they would have to spend more than they've ever spent start to worship if this is causing such trouble or harm to the class why are there any objectors because i mean the benefit of one person from objecting is minor right so in let's say let's say for hypothetical hypothetically that you were to convert the coupons to cash which is i think probably not a settlement the parties would never actually enter but let's assume they did you're still talking about seventy two dollars in cash i don't know you know very few people are going to go to the trouble of finding a lawyer and intervening in their genting in the case over seventy two dollars so there's another point to posner makes in redmond where he says that a low rate of opt outs opt outs or objection shows no more than quote oversight indifference rejection or transaction costs and interest other than to these people who are getting less than they should so there are some sort of public interest oh certainly i mean i think that that's what i'm trying to get out i understand that maybe there's an interest on the part of these people who didn't object don't seem to think that it's worth caring about but the argument for that and i know you're not addressing standing but if you address what the underlying interest is it helps us to deal with the landing issue certainly so our committee and the its purposes was to prevent settlements that quote offer little if any meaningful recovery to the class members and simply transfer money from corporations to class council and that's it paid for this and that that sounds like they're protecting interest of the parties who get very little  think there's you're talking about what the public interest is other than the general interest that parties get what they deserve i think there's a few in any tort if i may just putting on overtime but i think there's a few a few answers to that so there's st there's a the interest of people getting either retaining their claims or getting something that's actually worth something to give up their claims is not of the interest i don't think that's limited to those people so these are all these tort laws exist both to protect the the people who are harmed but also to protect the public i also think the public has an interest  in not having litigation for the sake of litigation and litigation that results in nothing more than a transfer of money from a corporation to a plaintiff's counsel with no bal you at all for absent plain it's not litigation that the side he has and it makes sense to me i understand that and i think probably that was driving it a lot does it make sense to say that here we're asking your advice on an issue that you're running on but does that does it make sense to protect that interest of states protecting their courts from being misused when you're talking about a federal lawsuit it's not a state loss well no i think the way i would a way as another way to ask that is is that interest present here where we're talking about federal laws yes i think it is because i think the states also have an interest in there not being an abuse of the legal process at the even if it's at the federal legal process in the unique context of class actions because  the class actions you know their own citizens are part of the case the suits can affect their claims as mr skinner explained and i think you'll explain more on rebuttal and so i think in this unique situation i mean also bear in mind catherine was a case that was meant to pull a lot of these cases out of state courts and into federal courts so cap of the creates a minimal juristic a minimal diversity requirement for federal jurisdiction so i just think that this is you know a lot i book i work for the federal government we're very nervous about parents patry generally when it comes to the states but i do think the class action context under catholic is very unique in a lot in several ways that i think do make it different from your typical case where the state is coming in and usually suing us about about some policies  good morning your honor great coleman here on behalf of the plaintiff the police i was listening to st of all of judge bush did you have a question i didn't know if you were getting ready to ask me something that well i had a question as part of the settlement was there any modification of the product yes and what was that so wondered under the terms of the settlement one of the things that was going on behind the scenes but it's outlined in our briefing your honor he's look there was a c p s investigation into the project that in part is what began the case in some form now there were other factors but that was something that was looked at by plaintiff's counsel there was a lid locking mechanism that we said failed of course tristar says the opposite suit is filed we proceed we litigated vigorously and then one of the things that came out of this as a result of the c p s see investigation along with the lawsuit is look the product is now being offered to the public that saying issues we believe existed with this set of class members no longer exist because the product is not as unsafe is it was when this product was being litigated very much a benefit i mean you've got something that was unsafe that is no longer unsafe that's a societal benefit no matter which way you want to categorize it the nih it or others of this so the premium product that the supplement allows the class members to purchase is you're  an improvement over the product that they use absolutely they had there and absolutely your honor and don't forget these were not just off the assembly line pressure cookers that were part of this class is judged when correctly a lot of these reforms five years old ok so they weren't worth those products themselves weren't worth seventy two dollars and fifty cents but because of the way the nd the settlement is structured and i notice absent from the argument of both the u s government and the state a g s they forget the fact that there is a warranty provision which is a relief other than a coupon and all you have to do to get a warranty replacement is simply provide a valid claim form show that there was the problem with the pressure cooker you don't even have to send the pressure cooker back in it is that easy you send in the claim form you get a new pressure cooker that's a benefit to society that they've just completely glossed over why doesn't that argument support the idea that arizona has parents petrea well you're out of the injuries not the same and i and i think judge when outlined it will in his opinion we've outlined in our briefs and let me make further expand on that your honor because i see the puzzlement if it were such a case that there was a parent's patriotic issue here because look you can't just sit around have knowledge of the case you got notice of the settlement right when when the preliminary approval papers were filed you can't we can't do anything for ninety days they had more than ninety days to do something why didn't they do it why didn't they do it it doesn't strike me as saying very much standing maybe they didn't maybe they had standing in line to get in very well ok let me ask you something about about standing road who said you've got to have article three standing to bring an intervention claim under rule twenty three dollars a and we say under rule twenty four dollars a and we say under rule twenty four b so for our purposes law road is where we begin right how how else are you supposed to have standing to bring anything when the supreme court says you've got to have standing to intervene well we've done an analysis does arizona have standing the answer is no because they don't meet the requirements set forth it's about our supreme court cases they're six are cases i guess dealing with parents patriotic there's a couple of them seem to be different to me that need to be when you look at them as i understand them they seem to be cases where there's something about  something from another state that's hurting the state as a whole and so they are representing the state as a whole attacking like there's the case i signed her stand in about puerto ricans who were discriminated in another state  and that was in a sense the interest of the commonwealth of puerto rico so the puerto ricans have the puerto rican commonwealth parents patron this doesn't seem like that so i'm wondering if there's cases that deal with parents pay try this  horizon for these traditions of louisiana and also later the th circuit where they did go through analysis of periods of patriotic and they found that there was no different injury that occurred to the state of texas just like there is no separate issue or injury that was incurred by the state of arizona with respect to the parties claims in this case that supreme court case no it's not you enlarge the powers of any state federal or state fish understand well i don't understand what the u s is saying with respect to oh you know under katha what they really meant when they were arguing on the senate floor was to give states and federal officials rights look we know there are arguments on senate floors both for and against bills that's what you argue about but the indra's oath of the argument is what the bill itself and katha under one thousand seven hundred and fifteen explicitly and textually says you get notice when you file your preliminary approval and you're going to do a nationwide class or whatever state class you've got to give notice to those states and you have to wait ninety days before you can enter a final approval that's it then you look at the very section of the statute the very last word in section if and it says exactly what i just quoted the were at least fairly close because i've tried to memorize it because it seems so germane their powers are limited to textually don't we just stop to quote one of our supreme court justices don't you read that and go stop here but we could read you some other text so the one of the express findings of congress and the capital was that class members often receive little or no benefit from class actions and are sometimes harmed such as where counsel are awarded large fees while leaving class members with coupons or other words of little or no value that's right in the texas statute why isn't that exactly what happened here for a number of reasons your honor this was one of those situations where you see plaintiff lawyers file a suit three months later they get into some enter into some sort of service to shifts agreement with the fence counsel the class gets nothing plaintiffs counsel gets millions in fees and then everybody's trying to approve it under a coupon only deal this was two years of litigation following motions to dismiss motions to certify motions to decertify dogbert in to trial your honour's it the haircut that we internally did before we submitted our bill was substantial and then in judge wins order he gave us another fifteen percent haircut which was three hundred and fifty thousand dollars off of our original fee petition did we object did we w groan no we accepted because we are trying to get the best benefit to the class based upon the things that happened up to and including trial having tried over one hundred and fifteen jury trials in my career the vagaries sometimes the trial the things that happened you don't know your jury you don't know how witnesses are going to respond under cross examination that can inform does this case need to be settle and then you try to do the best deal you can for the class afforded you get into the trial the st day your honor is the afternoon session after i believe it see three or four witnesses were called our main expert witness and the plaintiff achieve nothing for your class zero would that still be wanted to have a big payment like that not a big but your honor to a rewarding payment like well by now the court knows there are diminishing returns because of all the work here and even whatever the court government argues is sir certainly looks and we have a coupon again on we have the seventy two dollars fifty cents on three hundred and forty five year old pressure of any evidence how many of those were redeemed as opposed to not awaiting that's why under rule twenty three b three that's where the undue delay in prejudice has occurred to the class nobody's been able to do anything or avail themselves and please don't forget the warranty and listen here's another fact and i hate taken so much time thirteen thousand folks availed themselves of the of the credit or the coupon thirty one thousand viewed the video to help them safely use the product so for them to say there was no benefit is just bogus respectfully i know that's not a legal term but it's how off by thought if you want to use non legal terms it's hard to see how those things are worth anything yet what a safety video telling you how to properly use it a redeemable coupon and a warranty to get you have a those though that i can see how that would benefit the company more than it would benefit the people and i also see how a coupon that people ask for and you know send in this formula get a coupon that they then look at and say well i'm not going to use this mr frank you could ask that question even if it was there or you could say why was there no why was there but there was there wasn't zero your honor respectfully and that's that's my point mr frank objects for a living why did he wait to file an amicus brief is opposed to objecting why didn't the state has filed it to be recognized as an object or why didn't they object during the opt in or are opt out in objection period when they clearly contact the plaintiff's lawyer before the lawyers before that period end that's what this is about they're just wanting to not have the plaintiff's lawyers get paid i get it that's the way of the land these days we did provide a benefit respectfully we could debate the merits of the benefit but benefits were provided both from a coupon and a non coupon in a safety factor and the product that was unsafe is no longer on the market that's a societal benefit is just going talked about and i'm way over my time and i apologize  i'm going to talk about what no one else has won the st day of trial and the collapse of plaintiff's case to the mediation for manager of judge greenberg which was salvage get into that you say there is no action in the c p s the are you disputing then what the plaintiff what mr coleman is saying about the product being modified some way are taken off the market tristar modified the not upon the c p s he is urging but they investigated we took a hard look at ourselves internally and we decide to make some changes to make the product even safer and when did that occur  approximately eighteen months ago ok and that was after the class action here was brought yes before what was it before the trial it was before the trial  far how far along was the class action at the time the modification occurred i can't speak to my apologies ok i'm sorry go ahead st day of trial plaintiffs testified their chief expert dr john pret testifies dr pratt admitted he was not retained to reconstruct the incidents that the plaintiffs described his testy was inconsistent with their the substantive terms despite the implosion of the plaintiff's case the class we go she added valuable consideration the coupon the warranty extension and the condition for receiving those benefits was that the consumer had to watch a video designed to show them how to use the product even more safely council fees were discussed only after the subset of terms of agreement were agreed upon and tristar did not agree to a lump sum for council fees we simply agreed to not they reviewed the testimony of the plaintiffs in this case they reviewed the testimony of dr pratt they dropped their investigation taking no action with respect to the over three million cookers tristar ha sought in short dr price testimony in this case closed their investigation so it's against this backdrop that the district court approved the settlement as fair but if the case had no no legs you wouldn't have to pay correct so you're arguing the case had had legs but it didn't have legs i mean you're not every case has l there's always a chance of winning getting rid of the nuisance value is no no no it's not a nuisance value case we fall for this tooth and nail up to and including the st day of trial and it was there and then that we realized and perhaps maybe even plaintiffs realized that their case had problems namely dr pratt flipping the cooker over to force them out of function but but but what that's saying is they s  and and try stores a business and what does business do we manage risk we manage risk here so if you're just saying we paying money because there's a chance even though it's small that they might win in that then then the case is worth a certain amount right is worth something is worth something and the question is if it's worth something why shouldn't the plane of skid a substantial part of that something rather than only the lawyers get virtually all of that something whatever that something is that doesn't really answer that to say well that something is larger that something is trash arsonists that something is very small well if it's very small why should the lawyers get all of it try store did not decide how much the lawyers get well but this is that's the that's the issue before us now assuming that they're standing to the challenge and so forth your honor that's why i'm trying to see where we are and i understand the passion in your in your y'all go have that it divide this as you see fit that's not what happened st we negotiated the terms of the settlement and measure judge greenberg would testify compensation for counsel would not even discussed until after that point the terms of the settlement reflect the weaknesses in plaintiff's case the plaintiffs are not walking away with nothing which judge winds stated very clearly they could have walked away with nothing he dealt a liability he dealt a liability after a liability you don't have to pay to attorneys fees right that's correct but again it's about risk management but your honour's there's a large number of arizona ins who will have their claims released as a part of the settlement i think it's as many as fifty thousand they were brought into this case only at the settlement stage their claims are not at issue at trial ninety nine percent of the class is going to lose claims entertain nothing in exchange only thirteen thousand warranties only thirteen thousand coupons is there anything in the record as the number as to the number of arizona's who asked for coupons we do not know that your honor we've asked for breakdowns of the number of arizona  both in the class and who have obtained coupons and we don't we don't have answers with parties not given us answers as to that given that there's given the percentage of arizona ins that are part of the nation given that it's now a nationwide settlement given the small number of coupons we at least know that a substantial number of arizona ins are very likely to be losing their claims in exchange for nothing and i think that there is nothing in the record of any arizona having contacted the attorney general to complain about this case there is not your honor it is important to note that the release here covers personal injury claims person injury claims for which the named plaintiffs are being compensated twenty five thousand dollars each and if in arizona in for example had a strong personal injury claim they would have to opt out of the settlement in order to retain that claim because to stay in their claim would be released even though class representatives would not be having to face that choice and anybody who opts out cannot object and speak in this case so here you have a situation where there is the release the ninety nine percent of people who are getting nothing in exchange for the release and the risk of foreclosing a future cause i saw in action leads to an absolute harm that the vast majority of the costumers are an absolute sense worse off irrespective of the film you have have standing that you may intervene and we get to the merits of whether or not this was a fair and reasonable so what is our standard to review for that the standard review is whether or not a proof of the settlement was abuse of discretion recognizing that abuse is found if the improper standard was applied or if the proper standard was selected for for example calculation of fees and misapplied to the extent that the court identified that the typical cross check should be twenty to thirty percent and then approved a subtle meant that was fifty three percent going to attorneys even on the district court's view that all coupons were there feeling that the case had gone to trial it was a forgery and that and the judge could see this scenario as it was being played at trial isn't that a reason why should we should maybe give a little bit more deference to the solomon given that the district had a little bit more experience of what actually was happening and that in that case i think that experience only goes your honor to the three classes that were certified in the three state claims that were certified the judge who never certified an arizona consumer fraud class the judge had never analyzed that law for purposes of the merits and was now bringing in arizona and only at the end to release their claims so if the case had gone to trial and been a total loss i don't know that that would have had any effect of the impact on  arizona can arizona consumers claims under arizona's law in arizona courts so i do think that to the extent that the court had insight into the three causes before it and the testimony before the court that's one thing but not as to arizona's and just to follow up on a point that was case the best with your best case the best authorities are on our snap combined with intelligent or in snap it was the state coming in to protect the state but it was to protect the subset of state citizens who wanted to work in seasonal jobs in the northeast and there were seven hundred and eighty seven dollars such job openings that is obviously a subset of the state here we have a substantial number of arizona was the state this states i believe were connecticut and maryland it they said swer discriminate claim and snap was the states were setting rules for seasonal worker approvals that did not adequately favor citizens united states opposed to foreign citizens and citizens of puerto rico felt that they were not being given the adequate respect as citizens united states but it was about a set number of jobs and set region of the country that is small such that a subset but a substantial subset of puerto but certainly not all and here we have a substantial number of arizona and then you have that was something that in a sense i mean when you describe it in a sense that was an action that hurt the state as a whole because it's saying the people from these states are not going to in general are not going to be treated the same as theirs is there anything like that that seems to me to be an on the face distinction from the from just these people in particular because you know the concern i have with i've course your honor i would say that two people can look at snap and see two different things on the one hand you can see a state protecting all of its citizens and on the other hand you can look at a state protecting the rights of the subset of its citizens who wish to work in a particular state pursuing in a seasonal job and here we have a large subset of our consumers who are having claims including personal injury claims released as part of a nationwide class action outside of our borders and we're trying to reach into that other jurisdiction and say please stop and do you not do the absolute harm to our citizens and then when you look at the intelligencia case alongside of it which says that if this settlement goes through it would possibly maybe likely foreclose what is undoubtedly a normal cause i sovern parents patry i aspect of our jobs which is bringing consumer fraud cases to get restitution for years  thank you counsel for both sides