each one of them if that issue is correct and we don't have the merits of this case resolved for purposes of the class then the content of the phone call is not relevant because the call in and of that self triggers the henrys may have with other class on a class members and second judge meeting was concerned with the conflict in the lobby between the circuits affecting the ride through often with respect to the conflicts of the class  the court essentially set some members of the class they desire associates policy to continue but that is not a measure of whether or not an actual conflict  in fact post discharge phone solicitation and postpone solicitation is illegal the fact that some class members may desire that conduct to continue is not a sufficient justification for court's rationale overlooked the fact that those members who do want this time like to continue to exist have the right to opt out of the class don't have to be involved in the resolution of the if you have the right to grow their own separate way individuals have a desire to control their own litigation this is one of the aspects of the case that troubles me the most first stemming from bankruptcy most of these cases and most of the class will have over several year period i think undermines and doesn't give credence to the level of damages vs the level of effort that goes into winning tho well that's that's true your honor but the henrys brought this case is a punitive class and brought it on the basis that the class would be protected but the essence of the reason that the case was brought wealthy not only protecting people the henrys but to protect the that this case was litigated in rather odd procedural posture doesn't deny that unnamed class member still have an interest in alleviation going forward just you're telling me something i don't like it he and the defendants you know i'm a plaintiff's attorney i get paid when i when and if i when the defendants get paid by the hour and if the defendants are going to drag the process through a several year pro structure harder to get i don't disagree with one but i also don't think it takes away from the fundamental fact that there was a wrong here that there are multitudes of people that suffer from that wrong and that those people's rights can be redressed uniformly  that back and say don't ignore the law no i want you to find that there is i want you to reverse a district court not remain and i want you to find that there is one common question of law applicable to the point out to the court that not only is of course a very lenient standard but the presentation by my esteemed colleague mr becker has left out some very important factors illegality of a post here charge phone call is not the only issue in this case quite clearly it is not because if it was this case would have gone away before the bankruptcy appellate panel and the bankruptcy appellate panel in october ruled and i will just quote we find the holding and reasoning of remarriages one into p communications therefore the bankruptcy court did not hear in holding that phone calls to collect payments or no right to jurisdiction are not per se improper collection activities under trial court found if the answer is anything but any phone call at all on any subject no matter what is said is wrong then you have to go and look at every phone call to make sure that phone call was that sort of call an innocent one or a an aggressive harassing collection heifers would be an individual question which would predominate and that's quite apart from the issue on which the trial court also right makers carefully you'll find that that's not true but even if it had been true in the particular factual context of that case it cannot possibly be true in the particular factual context here because here we're dealing with not  of action under federal law but rather contempt these are the discharge injunction is just that an injunction and the remedy for it violate when is this court held in walls versus wells fargo ban n the only remedy is contempt there's no direct cause of action when you're in forcing an injunction by contempt surely it is not proper to hold a defendant in contempt for violating an that the court that issued the order felt meant something different than the court in which we're now litigating the question if you go to the second circuit not second for going i'm sorry one of the circuits where the ride through option does not exist for my belief if they are discharged means something different in the eyes of the judges who issued the discharge injunction because there is no possibility of a ride through and therefore no possibility that a creditor and a debtor will have any continuing relationship after discharge and after the close of the case the collateral if it exists has either been acquired by the debtor through redemption or it's been surrendered or there's been a existence of the right to option at least a defendant should not be penalize in a class action for having followed the law the circuit in which the defendant was then operating now let me move on to bankruptcy court has held in identical cases hartke being the last in a long line of them that it is objectively it's not it's not a question of whether a de you know her personally desires to be called that's not the issue the issue is whether objectively considering their interests their legal interests are those legal interests that have best represented by the kind of challenge that the henrys wish to bring on their behalf and the state and every bankruptcy judge who's considered the question has said emphatically no and there's a being told by a creditor you in fact sent me a check without a make or signature on it if you don't get it back to me with a signature on it i'm going to grab your car because that's the only remedy other ride through option if the debtor wishes to surrender the lateral so it is in the interest of both the debtor and the creditors objectively considered to have some means of communication available so that errors and payment can be cured simply and easily without repossession of the collateral so that the debtor knows what's a pay on time in the correct amount to the correct person reason for denial of a class as a matter of due process as well as rule twenty three hands free vs lead quite clearly holds that where are the class representatives interests are mr backers firm was awarded three hundred fifty thousand dollars for slaving away for all those years on this case and i would further point out that the reason for slaving away on all those years on this case was precisely because of the fact mentioned at the outset which is you'd have to look at it each individual question not only excuse me each individual's factual circumstances to determine the nature of the c all of the issues in the case and that i mean that one central issue affects every single debtor in the case irrespective of whether they want the cost to continue and irrespective of whether or not one debtor got ten calls or one debtor got fifty a second and i want to go briefly to the argument regarding conflict with the class and we've been doing this litigation for a long time and one of the things that we hear a lot is that this is a tool for  ninety phone call there is nothing in the record that suggests that that policy is any different for any other unnamed class member so our argument to the course of them that you have to drop right line