is your client asserting that the judgment was improper in the amount that was noted in the judgment well i think if you look at his so that you can answer that yes or no and then we can talk about what you i mean your honor like the total amount of nine hundred and thirty right here is he contesting that amount or is the company contesting that amount i think that he is based on the way i look at it and here's why i am trying to answer your honest question but he father proceeds and when i looked at it essentially says if you look at his materials that he believes the plaintiffs counsel essentially collected a fee on the amounts paid out to the nurses and then also took his own fee from the amount that he levied on so if you look even on page on he cares about that why well i guess is or diminish is that if the pla counsel took more of a in you know basically took more of the overall judgment in the case i think some of the claim was for attorney's fees i think is argument is that the overall judgment amount should have been less essentially that my client paid more than he really should i and did not appeal to the judge what he did in this court affirmed it and that was a long time ago my mistake realized he had his day in court on an appeal of the judgment i agree with you on that right and he didn't assert that it was somehow improperly noted as to the amount of attorneys fees and the amount of the judgment actually is damages owed to the plaintiffs agreed he didn't he didn't say that then i don't know if he knew the fac based again based on my reading of the prince a papers he filed i think it is i don't why wouldn't that were probably have been brought as a rule sixty motion to have the district court do something about that the the alleged fraud or hypothetical fraud having been discovered rather than sent most of our sanctions are yeah but you're on a might be right on that if you if you will that then obviously you would say that this motion was improperly you know brought in the st place of a motion for sanctions a motion for sanctions which is what we're here which is really what we're here for and i think part of the problem your honor and i i understand that there's there are certainly some issues of standing and i know magistrate court proceeded on the ground that they had the authority it was within their jurisdiction to make sure the judgments were properly satisfied so i think to me you know the court of appeals really should look at the matter in which the district court imagine the court resolved the issue and then see if they resolve the issue properly but we do have to examine standing just for purposes of our jury well for a group of federal jurisdiction  i totally agree your own earnest and look at the court looks at this record and says we don't think that the palin had standing below then obviously the rest of the arguments i made would go away so i acknowledge that from a legal standpoint my only argument is that standing is a requirement but the court below found that he had standing and i think if you look at his submission in his admittedly a pro se allegation but his double dipping which i think his attorney at one point t explain was attorney that came in below wasn't me his argument about double dipping i think is enough to give him standing in terms of the motion that was far below and then again really the only thing i'm focused injury his injury yes to create the standing i think his organ meant is that the that is that the total judgment really should have been less but that's not the argument the argument here is that the attorneys took monies that belonged to class members our collective action members here the true and on that ground you're saying maybe he doesn't have an injury in fact and the only answer i have to that organ meat which i knowledge is in the keys is if i think that there's enough of an injury in fact for for him because he was the defendant on the judgment he made them and it was a a judgment issue although the style that is a motion for sanctions i think the district court has it recognize and imagine judge have enough there to then go ahead and look at the merits of what the man presented below the magistrate judge with regard to what you just that there was a factual dispute because some of the nurses submitted affidavits that said why didn't get the money that the plaintiff's lawyer said ok now i don't know if that's true or not but the fact that those in the nurses submitted those affidavit magistrate judge resolved that in in camera view and just said well i think it's been cleared up i think if you look at the magistrate's opinion on twenty four of the appendix she said it's dispelled any concerns she looked at i think that should have been done in open court and i think that the diff that the defendant my client here on appeal should have had some opportunity for cross examination it should have been done on a proper have eventually basis and that's really the narrowness of my argument here it's not really about the solved it's about the manner in which it was resolved below and i think the court should you know if it gets past the standing issue obviously was i know is a concern to the court i think that it should go back and forth short evidentiary hearing on this narrow issue that i've read in the appeal yeah i think i think that she did give them an opportunity to appear but they weren't really under the control of my client the appellant so my argument is that the in camera part of what the court wouldn't your client then have the obligate if he wanted the nurses there have the obligation to call them as well yes he would he would have that obligation but again the fact that the magistrate conducted home conducted of the magic of poor but the one objection that my client did make clearly below was that he felt they should have been testifying in an open hearing with cross examination he did clearly raise that  recall that i guess your honor it would be a witness presented probably your right by the defendant below subject to cross examination by the plaintiff's lawyer but no words  defendant appellants lack of standing to raise this these issues on appeal that a motion for sanctions can be decided on papers without need of an evidentiary hearing and whether appellants waived these arguments by not raising them in the court below in reply opponent's counsel has responded that essentially what he has today which is there is standing because there is jurisdiction he's conceded that a motion can be decided on papers but he contends without authority that it was a he thinks it was a bad idea in this case and he said nothing at all about the waiver but i to briefly address all three of those issues as to standing the court below did address standing the court did not decide that mr d'orvilliers had standing the court stated explicitly that it overlooked his lack of standing to raise these issues because of the gravity of the issue in the court went on the magistrate went on and the district judge approved a report recommendation the magistrate went on to assert soon as bonser the court's ancillary jurisdiction to police the enforcement of its own judgments but at no time did the magistrate or district judge gunn office say that mr dorval it had standing to raise these issues in any event in any event injury in fact is your honour's observed a moment ago is a part of the years irreducible constitutional minimum without which a court lacks the power to hear the case the appellant cites no case for the proposition suggested in its brief that standing may be waived by a litigant as it as it asserts that we did in fact supreme court say is that standing maybe a certain at any point in the litigation and this court has stated many times that it reviews standing court can decide a motion on papers and in fact it's quite common and has been universally approved by appellate courts in its reply brief the a power concedes that a district court may do so but it contends that in this case it ought not to have done so in other words they say it was a bad idea but they don't say it was an abuse of discretion let alone cite any authority for the proposition that it an abuse of discretion in any case it was not a bad idea because the magistrate spent nearly a year inspecting the records of my former law firm's trust account she reviewed the front and the backs of substantially all of the checks or a few missing yes there are a couple missing i am quired of the bank the bank did not time respond indeed it never respon documents the other side had not seen that is correct i would add that in his objections to the magistrate as his report and recommendation below he didn't say a word on the subject checks i know it's in the record but just for our edification here how many of the checks weren't available as part of what was obtained from the bank two or three and none of those two or three check was recorded in the bank records registers that were provided just the copies of the checks front and back one available that is correct or entitled i did not accept a contingency in this case i accepted only the court awarded attorney's fees which were of course subject to review by the judges go and get office below several years amount of the checks that she received the nd check was for one hundred and forty one thousand two hundred dollars not fourteen thousand two hundred dollars as stated in the brief and the affidavit is and is in the record ninety thank you thank you very much mr confusing on your reserve two minutes for a bottle let's get korans for the questions of me i i think the core perfectly understands the issues and i would rely on the arguments i've all right thank you thank you rogers thank you both will reserve decision on this matter