seeking monetary damages under rule twenty three b three the court failed to me why or whether there was whether brewer had any fundamental conflict or was somehow adverse with respect to the class and clear and these claims for monetary damages under b three but on under b three and they hold that brewer status as a former employee is in the absence of intervention here your honor it is there is no guarantee that class members will ever be able to obtain appellate review of the court the order denied certification of their class that they would have been a member to the interveners have filed a motion to intervene for purposes of the people in the class certification judgement from the final order dismissing the individual points that motion is pending before the district court as this is one of the outside of the three let me say that i live in this is that these are not only special circumstances but extraordinary circumstances or are in the eleven months since the petition was filed in fact the case has ended and the people before the court in the this court of the motion to intervene are the same individuals who have moved to intervene for purposes of appeal in the district court in effect the case has caught up with argument about well you know your honor if i might two things first of all one of the intervenors frederick robinson in fact also is subject to mandatory retirement so he raises the same issues that because one of them is retired ok but three of them are not well your honor i believe that the errors in the court's decision below would remain unless they  coming up i'm sorry ron where is the class representation question going to come in i don't remember her honor or here while i'm trying to figure out what you mean to say so we if we were to grant intervention your school has less relief simultaneously the district court split it stayed the class motion for not miles considered the emotion to a man in considering the motion to a man the court ruled that me say this the only issue i think the issues that have been raised that were raised in the petition go to the go to the class certification decision including what's the appropriate response when you're looking at  sense to send the parties back down all over again to achieve the formality of end of the case review when in fact it is a good case review now because the cases caught up to the petition would be reversing the district court's decision denying class representative status denying class members the opportunity to have a case the pursuit members in order to take an appeal from a denial of class or vacation is very different from the determination that these individuals would be allowed to actually serve as class representatives and i think that's very significant because here we're seeking leave to amend that they waited nine months from october of two thousand and thirteen until july twenty fourth teen they knew of the infirmities of their only class representative and did nothing and that as a result of that lack of diligence there was going to be prejudice to the courts what's allowed under wall twenty three at which is a review of only the class sort of the haitian decision but on an appeal from final judgment this court can hear any of the other issues that any of the other parties including parties who are not before the court today might wish to appeal for example there was a point in district court named fayette read she had individual claims and class claims and summary judgment granted against her once there's a final judgment she might wish to notice an appeal as well there are many other issues that came up over substituting for brewer so some euros a pen if you read depends on how you read it will say you certainly can't take reviewing the situation and as we've been talking about so yes these are appropriate persons who should be able to present to the district say that this is something that admits of vindicates review seems to musing nothing with respect to what is cognizable under twenty three have the case law is clear you don't have to bring the certification question and twenty make sense to say you should dismiss this twenty three of course you can bring it after the fact i course they can bring it after the fact that they prefer to do with that way no this court has twice said it when there is in a court twice as identify later that doesn't prove anything that's not that's kind of helpful i think let me just try to make two two points quickly first the government's urging the absurd result that having fully briefed the because for gaijin issues before this court you should say no but send the