this is an appeal of the trial court order which dismissed all of the class claims with prejudice of the various individuals that had filed the of these individuals were originally included or these classes of individuals were originally included in a class settlement proposal made in connection with the b from the briefs it's composed the class is composed of all these people have i would call idiosyncratic claims far and they have no relation to each other it's your honor would look at the original and that's b p s argument that these are idiosyncratic claims which by the way would be addressed at a class or three cation hearing ramesh i'm i'm not i'm really just asking as a practical question i mean how do you answer all these all these classes i have in common that's what i want is a commonality of this group you seek to remedy much the same commonality is the people that were included in the class settlement that was finally  would reach a class settlement as to certain people but they would exclude other major industries and if your honor would take a look at the original class settlement they included all kinds of groups of people that are truly different in in many ways a burden but all affected by the oil spill but you know the only thing that these people have in common that you seek to represent is a class are they were they were adversely affected by that want that and that's what the original is all you need in your opinion that's all you need to constitute a class that that's what was originally part of the definition and it's not read is that what you're saying no i'm sorry you're that what you're saying is that all of the people the only thing they have in common is that they were their claims arise out of the want the original definition spill and included in that were as you know why the ranges of people and what it ended up she is me what ended up happening is that the last minute just before trial p and the players steering committee took out certain people including financial institutions developers gamers real estate developers government workers all kinds of other people and their employees that have been affected by the oil spill and said and the point mary is they bring their clients individuals and i mean if you look at the hour they excluded i really don't know i mean it was some kind of a year sentence on which are decisions on the part of the court it was excluded the people that you now seek to represent this class it was a compromise immediately after that this class claim was filed and it included all these entities that in regionally been included in the original complaint honor because the the original definition and the definition basically included anybody who was affected by the oil spill and had they broken down into groups and then they took some groups and they just took them out and this class complaint that was filed almost immediately after the settlement included those groups that had been systematically excluded in terms of that settlement so you represent harrah's we represent what you represent gambling come all along  represent everybody who was named in that in that class complaint which are basically the people that were taken out or any of them opt outs some of the more opt out some of more opt outs yes of are you the only firm that claims to represent these people in my the only what is your firm the only firm that claims to represent such a class there were originally numerous firms that were representing this class but the others all complied with the p t o sixty you know what happened is most of the others appealed the p c l sixty order and many of them were bought out by b p and the claims the name players representatives were no longer there and as a result they were they were gone but we still had people that were left as name claims representatives and so our peel continued but no there were numerous there were probably at least four or five firms that were representing people in this case in this class and so you did but you didn't these people did not appeal the settlement on the basis that it excluded them as far as i know that was not an appeal of the settlement but there was simply a filing of the class action on behalf of all the excluded groups which were like you said well what do you get you have seven minutes left when you get to your principal point about why we should vacate the occasion of p t o sixty to your client ok but what ended up happening is we filed this class claim shortly after the settlement and named in the class claim all these groups that had been excluded from the settlement then there was a stay by the court that went on for basically about six years it was our class claims about three years because that was  times timeframe but then what happens is in march of two thousand and sixteen the judge decided that in his words he wanted to clean up the rest of the claims and what he did was he had originally it allowed people who had file who had a claim to file what he called a short for jointer or a mass jointer claim and so people could just file a form and file a claim and then they had other clay cases where people had no commonality at all but they could just complete a and i'm putting from his order anybody who filed individual lawsuits had complete a sworn statement by a certain date vote obama and then any plaintiffs who did not file individuals sued but only filed a short form joined or were part of a man's joinder lawsuit had to file individual lawsuit and the sworn statement by a certain date it did not address class actions the the next thing that happens is that the the people that were representing the people in the class really had no reason to believe that this order even applied to them but there was a motion for patients that was filed by one's law firms that our firm and our class joining in which the court never ruled on then the the court basically asked whether the order to show cause which we responded to explaining to the court that trying to require people that were in the class action to file individual lawsuits would be highly prejudicial because most of the statue of limitations or if not all would have run by that time and if they filed before there was a hearing on certification or serve haitian that they would lose the effect of the tolling how do you interpret the language in the judge's order that says and or were part of a complaint with more than one plaintiff that doesn't implicitly include class action and that was that was actual circulation of most people well that's what the it is but it doesn't it's addressed and if you look at the actual order you see there is highlighting plaintiffs who do not file individual lawsuits i e i e only nevertheless i mean so council read the highlighted they read the bold they didn't read the fine print is that what you're saying i'm saying that they read what the judge said which was they did not  we filed a jointer in the motion for clarification of that order which the judge never ruled on instead and we filed it by the way before the judge issued an order to show cause which he did in june asking for people who had not filed to you know file something indicating why they had not and our people did file a response pointing out the problems of trying to make individuals in a class action individual souse that they would they would that's they're generally referred to as claims yes but anyway we pointed that out and the b p responded by saying they didn't see why there should be the exception for class actions i mean that was it they didn't point to any law or anything and at the same time that filed the response to the order because we also asked that the court allow some kind of a hearing on class certification so that there could be a determination one way or another so that our action that was involved in the series of events following march of two thousand and sixteen i'm not sure if there were others i have read in other pleadings that there were other class actions but i don't know what ever happened to those so your position is the p t o sixty or the court order march two thousand and sixteen did not apply to your client's right that was our position but more importantly that the court by simply dismissing these claims of potentially tens of hundreds of thousands of people abuse discretion and this is not a case thank you your honor and may please the court the appellant's in this case are sixteen plaintiffs who filed a multi plaintiff complaint in two thousand and thirteen alleging economic damages from the deepwater horizon incident that multi plaintiff complaint was pending when judge barbie issued p t o sixty in two thousand and sixteen and as this court recently held in pereira and per as p t o sixty required all plaintiffs with pending claims to file individual lawsuits one plaintiff pursuit and it barred plaintiffs from continuing to maintain multi plaintiff complaints including class actions but appellants did not comply with p t o sixty despite many opportunities to do so despite many warnings that noncompliance would result in dismissal with prejudice and despite the fact that hundreds of other plaintiffs who had filed multi plaintiff complaints readily complied with p t o sixty by filing individual complaints as such judge bar acted well within his discretion in dismissing appellants multi plaintiff complaint with prejudice for failure to comply with his order his judgment should be affirmed this court's decisions in the rare and career as dictate the outcome of this case both cases held that p t o sixty was an appropriate case management order because it helps judge bar b identify exactly which play just remained in the case after several massive settlements and exactly what those plaintiffs claims w which in turn helped facilitate resolution of those claims and wind down what may be the most complex litigation in history and both cases held that dismissal with prejudice was an appropriate remedy for not complying with p t o sixty furthermore paradis specifically affirmed the dismissal with prejudice of a class action complaint and it specifically rejected the argument that p t o sixty could not apply to class action complaints what was true is no less true here there are no material distinctions between the circumstances in those cases and the circumstances here indeed appellants barely addressed purpose and they submitted no response to our twenty eight j letter regarding address is this idea that that p t o sixty simply did not apply to class actions i don't actually read the appellate appellants brief to be arguing that squarely it's not really in their questions presented but regardless i think that that argument is foreclosed by forever which you know very clearly states that the appellant sole argument on appeal is that they were entitled to pursue their claims as a class action notwithstanding the trial court's case management order to the contrary the this court squarely addressed that question and it's squarely rejected it even can look at the actual language of p t o sixty itself as as your honour's were doing where it says in multiple places plaintiffs who quote were part of a complaint with more than one plaintiff are required to quote file an individual lawsuit one per plaintive so i think it's pretty clear just both from this court's holdings and also from the face of p t o sixty that it applies to class actions but i think it's also underscored by the fact that as opponents concede they joined this motion for  reconsideration of p t o sixty that another firm filed that motion for reconsideration takes as a premise that p t o sixty applies to class action class action complaints it's at record one three three three five and that moot for reconsideration is not arguing that p t o sixty doesn't apply to class actions it's saying because it applies to class actions judge barbie you should rethink this order because here are some things that we think are problems with it now you know even those arguments themselves i think lack of merit and they reappear in appellants briefs on appeal but i think the important thing to note is that that whole motion f reconsideration is premised on the very idea that yes in fact p t o sixty does apply to class action complaints but i think there's another problem with the complaint here even before you get to that which is that this is a multi plaint complaint i mean there are sixteen appellants here who are named plaintiffs on the complaint and there are certainly no dispute at all that p t o sixty applies to multi plaintiff complaints i mean that was the whole point of p t o sixty was to after several massive settlements including the very large of the one class economic damages center sixty nine and my moves in this class action that is correct there are the names plaintiffs themselves who the that that's who you are the appellant's now there were different name plaintiffs in the actual complaint that's at issue here and i think one thing that's actually worth noting is that one of those main plaintiffs who was on this multi plaintive complaint in fact did comply with p t o sixty he submitted a p t o sixty to apply an individual suit this is lawrence ritchie and he's at record two four five four five he's listed in the names in the complaint as a name plaintiff has describe to a statute of limitations and i think that actually goes another point which is that nobody has actually tried to file a complaint after p t s sixty none of these putative class members that said that the appellant's claim to represent no one's even tried to file a suit and i think that's because those class members that they claim to represent the banks the gaming companies you know the insurers you know all of these disparate  entities that were excluded from the settlement for very good reasons filed their own individual complaints shortly after the settlement because they had been excluded and you know and those claims have gone through the process they have gone through sometimes to a settlement process they have gone and they will then that claim settlement procedure that i believe they are that well they're not part of the claim settlement procedure that was set up by the the economic the large economic settlement in two thousand and twelve but they there are there's a separate mechanism set up there's a neutral process set up for on a separate one but i know there's there have been many different mechanisms set up to deal with resolving enforcing them with dismissal with prejudice if they are not complied with you know and i think that's you know in some ways one of the principal ways of keeping the trains running on time and such a massive and d l and again i don't you know i  explained in our brief that was actually not the holding of the court in peru as that was a footnote it actually did address the merits about class actions but then the one distinction they do point to is that in this case the class action complaint was   you know that it would be applied here and if you want to make it published you can but you could do exactly what you did in parades and render it unpublished as well but i think that there really isn't any material distinction whatsoever between and this case and i think when you over labor rare on top of that which is a published decision i think it's very hard to come up with any theory that sort of gets you around that and it doesn't have p t o sixty applying to this multi  if there are no further questions i don't think so thank you and first of all in our case the class action was filed shortly after the original settlement agreement in the pres case pres had not filed any class action pres was a cooperative group of mexican fishermen and at the time that the p t o sixty order was entered they were not a member of any class action they were members of mass joined or actions they didn't have a class action pending they then filed four separate class actions without seeking permission from the court after p t o sixty was entered they also represented to the trial court that they would file individual complaints which they did not do they sought extensions of time to file individual complaints which they did not do and then they appealed based on this class action matter that as i said they did not have a class action pending at the time that p t o sixty was injured incidentally there was a question about the tolling matter with regard to the class actions and the peace council takes the position that nobody's ever raised this issue of statute limitations it cetera but i will point out and i can't find it in my brief but i know that in my brief i point out that actually in the poorest case they raise the statue of limitations in the press case as a bar to their causes of actions and the fact is that the united states supreme court has said without question on numerous occasion crown court and seal company and american pipe that a class action complaint tolls the running of a statute of limitations after class or ation but before class certification there is a division among circuits there is nothing in the fifth circuit that would speak to this for the general feeling and certainly the the statements from the supreme court is that there has there is a tolling only after the class or if occasion has been ruled on one way or another and like i said contrary to what the peace council is representing now pres they said statute limitation should apply we're also who you also mention that there are only sixteen name plaintiffs at this point well if you take a look at the original notices of appeal that were filed in connection with this matter there were probably thousands of deemed class representatives all of whom were bought off basically by p which is why they ended up with only a few named class write off means they were paid money so i really don't see what you're and they're not your client or even if they are within your class well there's nothing wrong with that right there's nothing wrong with that but i'm saying it's not to attempt to diminish the size of the class by saying there's only a few people left is really not accurate because there are still these people and these are people representing themselves individually but also as members of putative class which is never been termonde so the fact that there are only a few names and actually generally speaking in class represent class cases there are only a few named the the reason there were so many named individuals in this case was because council suspected that this would be the approach that b p would use would be to try to buy off the class represent thus eliminate people to represent the class but the fact is that there are a number of people that are still named class representatives and they represent a class of all of these various categories of people they also argued that the motion for consider reconsiderations your last point because your red light and song ok the motion for reconsideration basically conceded that thank you very much