thought i understand the split you've got you're you're taking ten minutes a minute eating five minutes to the meat because the national automobile dealers association is that right that's correct your honor ok so likewise your honor since that day and the day that only one out of every thirteen family go in the car and the most popular car driven with a model t ford the new jersey coalition of automotive retailers had been by only considering the interest of the mob to do you remember this court should consider the interest of all of the members of the car and and explain to us why what what what reason all dealers in the state of new jersey have an interest in fair competition and in their rights and interests under the franchise practices act and and general compliance with new jersey law every assume for the sake of discussion that every one of the sixteen bought the dealers in the state in new jersey really really love this program and wanted to do it so there was no question about that would your position still be that all the rest of us in new jersey would have a right to say hey they can't do that that's not who cares whether the the manufacturer in every franchise you like that they can't do that we don't like it that would be that would remain our position your honor because those there's interest starner eradicated simply because a majority the entirety of minority of the mob the deal their members like or dislike the program put together by their manufacturer they could be the next dealers subject to a program from their respective manufacturers that infringes upon the same rights and protection that the moment the brain experience program principle well and in that instance would be able to associate should be able to do what they've done here and come in and say look we've got people who don't like it but and no one will stand up from accept us but but your position is is couldn't that that brand can not agree with their own plan chai tea even if every franchise like that and that the people to vindicate that right are you the new jersey coalition of automotive retailers right well it is monster reaches bolland her agreement with their dealers that do not infringe upon their rights and protection under the french i practice that i think that's a different situation than what we have here where mazda unilaterally implemented the brain experience program this isn't in agreement with  of the dealers would have to take extraordinary effort in order to comply and that is exactly what the french act practices act disallowed can prohibit but by not complying they're just not afforded the discount correct correct correct they are tonight to benefit from based on in some circumstances their inability to comply with the criteria set forth in the grant experience program that all of the dealers all of the members interest should be considered but even if it's court were to consider only the interest of the monster dealer members the court the courts are primarily concerned sure that i'm following your legal i understand the position you've taken which i think to be like you got on the far end of what you could say which is it does it it really doesn't matter what these people agree to but the matter because all the rest of us that only cars in the state we've got an interest in what happens between those privately contract and parties that's your position and my question is if the association to ride it standing from the standing of its members if this  your honor what operable authority do you have that what would be traditional standing rules how could they claim an injury what they would have to demonstrate and injury in fact and yeah here the input the implementation of the monitoring experience program and gender is unfair competition that causes t ford dealer could possibly have standing no chevy dealer could possibly have standing in that right because they couldn't allege an injury in fact to the matter what happens between mas and its dealers is not touching ford or chevy or honda or key or anybody else on that injury in fact basis for an individual dealership right if a ford or chevy dealer loses fell as a result of an action taken by m of the french type practices act and that engender unfair competition we would submit that has caused them to suffer an injury and that that would give them standing in their own right to pursue the lawsuit wow that's remarkable so you're saying it would be and it would be unfair cause it's unfair competition for ma to price its product not an antitrust injury when i talk about something like that your argument is mot they can't price its product with it's own dealers because that might in some way somebody make somebody prefer mot that to afford so ford would have an injury in fact they have standing to complain about that that's the position you're advancing not not past your time but i got to hold on to this because it's it's puzzling to me you're trying to make the legal argument that if somebody else has had violating the law in a way that doesn't have anything to do it doesn't touch the other dealership at all that is you know i may not i may not like somebody who who does cat juggling conflict have an affinity for cap but does the fact that that's happening and in fact it might actually violate the laws against cruelty to animals does that give need standing it's an individual to haul that person into court traditional standing rules would say well you know that that doesn't give you individual standing it might offend you it might bother you and you might be right that it's a violation of law but you have no standing your assertion seems to be that every dealer in the state of new jersey has an interest in what happens between mosque there and the mosque the dealers and therefore even if they  any injury in fact if the very reason that some violation is going on that bothers them gives them standing that is be entering in fact that sounds like what you're arguing is that yes because it sounds like what you're saying is if you just look at the district if you just look at the mob that is the way the district court did we still win that right that's correct yeah ok well i  i burned a lot of your time so i'll give you a couple more minutes here to make the point you'd like to make and and certainly to give judge her strip and judge greenberg a chance to weigh in so if i understand you correctly you went either way that's what you're telling ju jordan if you take if you take the entire playing field you win and if you just limit the mazda dealers you also win is that your position that is our position your honor all right thanks  specific purpose be met and when you look at the supreme court cases in iraq for example they devote you know a ten pins or two to the analysis of the problem to think that the that easily it is important to know whether what we are entering whether the patient can appropriately represent the interests of the of the members let me hear could it could it for dealer bring a claim before dealer down the street bring a claim saying that this mazda program violates the new jersey statute it's not pricing the cars fairly and therefore i might lose market share is that how what is the injury in fact to nine mazda deal argue for that but did you know you were back then assume we thought it was important to know whether we had to look at the interests of the mob the dealers or to everybody what would we be question that every one of the i think the mock the members of every single one of the love this program and wanted to do it then your interest would be in conflict with the people who are involved right how could you say we're representing the interests of  your up your position is it's up to the association we can argue and conflict we can argue directly against the interests of the only party who would have individual standing if we think it in the interests of the rest of us that's the legal position you've got don't but that were asking a question about whether the mob like or not like and that kind of a question we started with what the what the group are looking at and what meaning does that have in the way we look at the complaint but i think we've got your position on this the motor of america and a car and it to me have made most of their argument to you this morning about nine mine the dealer members on whether they should be included but i think it's important to take a step back and look at the fact that m j card defended it standing to bring the clock to solely on behalf of the mob the fed fact of its membership and you can see that starting in the complaint at paragraph thirty wind where they identified the actual controversy as one between my and then you carried the mob to dealers and then on page six of a motion to dismiss opposition brief and a car said that quote in this case it appear and claim that you got eleven but that's not really speak and to judge greenberg point which is yeah it may be that there's some benefit to the people who qualify for some kind of a discount but if there weren't going on even bargaining power in the mix it might be that every one of them would say i was happy the way things were but if you're going to have discounts and i have to invest millions of dollars to change my showroom around to do this that the other thing i guess i'll do it because you're making me do it and i hope i make up the difference later but i'm not really delighted about it right that's the that's the point you've been given i'm a benefit but they might be better off without the benefit and the law the policy makers in new jersey seem to think they might be better without the benefit because they passed laws that seem to indicate maybe you should be doing this so that you know not to put words in judge greenberg now but wanted to answer that question i think he's putting to you which is the mere fact that you could come up with a few dealers who say well i'm doing ok with this let's keep it doesn't really better off without it they came forward with something from two five dealerships that had not and rolled and exactly right and when you look at them give very idiosyncratic reason for not in growing seriously the interests of the not enrolled members why why isn't there association standing because they've come forward with at least to mock the franchisee who can and maybe we would be in a position to allege an injury in fact i'm not getting the business i would otherwise get because your macon the mott the dealer in the next town over a better deal than you're making me and just because i can't afford to do all the stuff you want doesn't mean you should be allowed to do that under the new jersey law i assume we thought that that was it an accurate way for somebody to position themselves to get standing individually why isn't that enough for the association to be able to come in and say hey we've got standing because they've got standing and it's for the very kind of case like this that association to give so that people who can't stand up to the big money of demand factures can stand up through us what's wrong with that reason ok there was a line in there where the court said we have no basis for concluding that the members who entered into agreement do not want the relief die and what's really important to understand is that hochul council with not a factual enrolled there were no your did your case really come down to this hey there's there's only two people out there that don't like their kind of you know you'd be more polite than this but they're kind of whiners can go matter because they never grow old so because most of them are the dealers like it that that's good enough that the fact that some don't like it that i immaterial it's actually the equivalent of nothing if you put it what matters is that there's a factual finding that most of the market dealers have something to gain and we've got affidavits from five of them who indicate they really like it here go the ones who don't like it that's not that that's of no moment right i think the fact that the ones who don't like it are on it record a figment they can't minority and when you have a conflict of interests like that where you have a finding that seventy percent of the affected members and to be hurt if anything would be to be think that off then this isn't something that is policy new jersey you said well we don't want that exercised in a way that to the defeated damage of the dealers because they can't really stand up so if you've got if you've got two that are standing up that doesn't doesn't that sort of play exactly into what the the the associations are saying which is we've got you know we've got two brave souls ready to stand against the power precisely i think then to be saying there is no conflict in the sense that we can and do speak for those dealers who don't want them so we're right in line with them we are lining up exactly with the dealers who don't want this and that's what the association is for that's the very purpose for it to give it to have a gathering of strength to meet the strength of the of the manufacture so for in prong two why isn't that a perfectly sound argument because your honor that share the interest of the mob the dealers here are not the interests of the big two members who code not to involve and there is a conflict that makes it more like  argument that ms ellsworth that's made that there's a factual record here you had an obligation to make a record to sustain your factual challenge and you haven't done it can you can you go with that plea committed to affidavits from two dealers who were willing to come forward to express the fact that they would be harmed and were being harmed by the implementation of towards the injury in fact they were suffering as a result of the n b a that was not that was not challenged by market with respect to the nd problem i think pretty clear that all the others have a shared interest in fair competition and in the protection provided by the very fact that within that acted to protect them in their dealing with franchise who were to have an unlevel parking power when dealing dealers there is certainly a conflict of interest among the fifteen the dealers i think i think that is that is certainly accurate but there is no dispute that all of the dealers have a shared interest in fair competition promotion of their rights under the p f a and compliance with new jersey law that provides them with protections against their respective franchise  that only some of the dealers had suffered injuries as a result of the an action of the statute in north carolina but the court considered the entire industries right to publish private screening system and whether that