and in our view oregon law is identical to the federal law in this circumstance the same factors that are applied in determining a reasonable attorney under federal law are the same yes if by your question you mean does the court have to explicitly reference all of the factors for example and twenty point zero seven five it need not the court need not do so the organ supreme court has explained that certainly some of the factors that are listed in the statute are not going to be relevant in the particular yes that's what i have that's what i tend to say that the court must consider all of the factors it does not need to make explicit findings about all of the factors that need only identify a relevant factor in mccarthy of if the court in this court makes a first step analysis which is did the court properly understand and apply the law if he did if the judge did then it is an abuse of discretion well i think not because in this case certainly the judge did not in self find all of the factors relevant the judge identified four of the several factors that it determined to be relevant and so i don't any made that he made that point in his in his opinion in our view so he has not addressed or never does in his opinion addressed the distinction or a comparison between the relief requested in the results of pain i think it makes a difference because the supreme court has explained that it does when it examines the result factor and the organ statute prefers not only to the result of pain but the amount in controversy i think when you measure that's what we're talking about here success needs to take into consideration well what would they had something to prove and yes i do think that you also look at the proportionality of the feel bored to the ultimate damages but i think it's important and we would emphasize that the district court did not consider the distinction and that the tween what they were seeking in this case and what they ultimately achieve they attempted to certify a class of over fifteen thousand pla that because that is the opinion i don't believe that the court goes into that now i believe there you may have made some statements you asked in the last case about correct i don't think the judge ever  i i believe your honor that if this is again looking at the number of hours claimed and we were not challenging the number of hours claims we are challenging the failure of the court so then look this to be settled in that fashion i you know i think that the incentive that results from a one point nine million dollars fee award you have to make the kind of offer for this and certainly if i will say this y though getting back to i do want to address the heart of your question which is the political i would not take the litigation conducted by wal mart here i do believe that the judge recited that there was that was certainly not an idea of english will take away people's incentive to litigate when they're in the wrong making videos oh just death of two hundred thousand dollars what the oregon legislature is imposes a requirement on the court again to look at the results of pain when you look at this result again there were four hundred and twenty five plaintiffs in this case three hundred and fifty of them and their claims dismissed yes there that involved a lot of time but ultimately those claims were distributed dismissed that we were successful in litigating against those claims the plainest recovered on behalf of only eighty three plaintiffs and these plaintiffs were asking for many many thousands of hours of off the clock work in ultimately the jury virtually repudiated their cla whole of the eighty three plaintiffs that recovered any young paid wages thirty four of them recovered less than twenty dollars now the court and i and i want to think the court did talk about success in its opinion and it's a little bit before the segment that your honor was looking on pages one thirty four two or one thirty five to one fifty seven of  opinion it actually recites our argument it recites the plainest argument and then it concludes well you know under oregon law you can recover when claims are interrelated basically with the court concluded was you know there were there were a lot of plaintiff that last year but at least for the work that was performed up through the first phase of trial i'm going to allow the plainest to recover all of that work because it ultimately help the it's important to recognize that you'd still need to look at how successful you were on those in a related claims the court stopped right there in back your honour's where i would submit the rejected our argument on success and we would well the response to that your honor is that the ultimate significance depends on how many plaintiffs actually were able to establish that wal mart was liable to them yes there was a first phase liability determination but ultimately that the plaintiffs claims were rejected in large part by the jury in public liability not entirely no but the liability only under the after let's say there's no liability unless you three plaintiffs in very small amounts alternately of time worked off the clock it's in the entire state of oregon i thought what the judge said was ordered that those depositions occur these were the results of the of the procedure to sum up the propofol do you have to be posed everybody you know it did say that you are entitled to test the credibility of recognized in letting us that were he not to permit depositions that the trial could go on forever and he wanted to have a reasonable length of time in the trial that was what he said in the may two thousand and three two thousand and two hearing in wh the basic oregon of the factors to be considered there is two parts to it part two and in a rough kind of like part two utilizes the out that's to a i'm not looking at one of the conduct of the parties in the transaction or occurrence of give rise to the litigation including any conduct of a party that was reckless willful malicious and that they were illegal that one goes to the the character of the underlying claim which is not a traditional curve factor a traditional hensley factor the traditional d r one hundred six factor it goes to whether the entity it's something particularly wrong in this case the jury found that wal mart in the liability trial and it was carried over in the damages trial confident that it says that the other kinds of factors if you look at the and each one be a nice talk about objectively reasonable ness of the parties these are not factors that have any currency that i can find in federal law so on the the premise that the law is the same i submit is simply incorrect it has also been interpreted differently and let me speak to the in the case  happen here made an offer of judgment for six thousand dollars and attorney's fees to be determined the plaintiff except that the author of judgment and then they litigated issue of fees the fees requested were about again roughly twenty four thousand and twenty to twenty four thousand or about three and a half times as much as the that the judgment the defendant there argued very similarly to the argument here that too much of a a fee for a six thousand dollars case that the court rejected it using language with which i think it is  they said is in determining the reasonableness of the point that in that case action we will look not only at the six thousand dollars that was settled for but at the fifty thousand dollars which was originally planned and they speak to this they say although the settlement figure was approximately sixty five hundred the amount in controversy was at least fifty thousand dollars and cleanest efforts were directed in some measure to recovering that amount they then go on and say the plaintiffs actions there were in expending money going towards the fifty thousand were reasonable and thus w consideration other words that doesn't end the inquiries but you look not at the fraction apprised of what you asked for versus what you got but for some purposes you look at what you asked for as part of the basis for the the opinion the other thing that i time felt he acknowledges that he was discussing other factors in other parts of the opinion including a wal mart chose to take the deposition of every single point of who was involved some of them have declaimed some of them and you can tell that from the attachments to both of our priests who we have kind of off of on the left of how much was claimed kurt individual some of them were asking for forty dollars which at eight dollars an hour is a total of three hundred twenty physicians the second trial i mean which lasted about four weeks we we put on one hundred and eight plaintiffs and they put on probably ninety defendants i mean well it lasted about four weeks but we were running through things at and i mean we were doing ten to eighteen with this is a day i mean it and that was kind of the think it's not it's a bit of an candidate you put i wish we had to put on everybody to say what they did i mean that those were the rules and i guess i'm not saying we didn't cross to feel that that was that this isn't the judge way but that's where it was there was no other way to do it so i don't know we didn't do anything wrong under oregon law it's a perfectly appropriate way to do it i will if i if i may deal with just a couple other things the defendants argue fighting the mccarthy case which came up i think in an honest question that because they mentioned the issue of success versus expectation the defendants in this context can by raising an issue they can structure the discussion in that if they raise an issue that means that it's a relevant issue but it although i do not what we did there's no suggestion significantly the defendants don't dispute that we actually spent the hours or that our rates are out of line i mean the judge went through all these various factors and consider that and m found just just one minute further your honor i did just want to emphasize that the what the court is focused on is one of the factors the time and labor required in the proceeding one hundred eight plaintiffs who tried their claims so they had worked off the clock more than thirty eight thousand hours in the jury found that they had worked off the clock eight hundred fifty dollars that we would submit is an issue of success that needs to be looked at it needs to be looked at in addition to the amount of time that was involved which is what the court is talking about in the section that you focus thank you very much