claim in this case the eighty eight claim is dismissed because of jurisdictional reasons the trial court can no want there is no more discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and that's under the herman family revokable trust case two fifty four federal third eight o two so the issue here is that the claim isn't being dismissed on the merits it's being dismissed on jurisdictional grounds but i guess on there not moot but that was those claims should also be dismissed because that was essentially what the herman case describes as the hawk or the eighty claim was the going into the merits of our standing argument made a standing argument on the merits in this case and plaintiff has acknowledged that had this court it did but the plaintiffs even acknowledged if this court found in our favor on outstanding argument it would have required big hating remanding vacating and dismissing the case in its entirety because the eighty eight because the state law damages were completely issue for us here we're just looking at the state law claim that the as your court properly exercised implement jurisdiction and it's now on appeal here so i don't understand why we have any issue of looking at this  appeal here your honor the issue is that i had this again had the score been able to go into the merits of our standing arguments that would have meant and the court had ruled in our favor that would have meant that this court would be ruling district court you should not have even heard of this case because the plaintiff was unable to establish standing i think you're confusing the article three court challenge standing he lived more than one hundred thirty seven miles from the campbells store didn't visit it very often all those factors the court heard that testimony and concluded that it was sufficient to establish standing his death doesn't move the standing analysis at the initiation of the case what it moots is the ability of the court to  effective relief which is an injunction for the eighty act violations i agree with you those claims are moved and i think we're going to have to remain and to the district court with directions to dissolve the injunction but the question is at the same time that the court resolved the standing issue it also made a determination that the state law claims were inextricably intertwined with the facts of the  exercised its discretion which the law permits to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims so now it has in essence agreed to assume jurisdiction over those claims his death doesn't doesn't as that judgment to evaporate there were money damages that world war did after trial which are now an asset of the state so if there was standing at the time and we conclude there was no got a case that that says it does is it is the harman family revocable trust case the best case you've got on this point it's it's one of yes because this in that case it was even after trial even after the court reasoning is the decision to exercise that discretion was already made once the court says i'm going forward right you hear these claims right so there's no further discretion that sort of continues at that point the decision is made the court goes to trial in those claims court fines violation court renders judgment for monetary damages so we don't go back and undo the district court's at the inception of the honor a claim was really kind of based on a determination as to whether there was a violation of the a b a but once you make that determination and you get a judgment on it that's done as far as i can but i don't see how they gets claims voted out sure i would point on this court to the first chapman case chapman versus pier one imports and i point to this case because we did argue standing on the merits as did the pier one imports the defendant and that case they they argued standing on the merits and this court found that the district court erred in finding that there was standing to pursue the claim and this court then dismissed remanded the case instructing the district court to dismiss the eighty claim for lack of jurisdiction in that case there was the similar e t a claim with the on the road damages so are you are you arguing here that we should be considering the standing right now of the issue that's been bre and see whether they're standing in regard to a da are you saying that's what we should be doing here today your honor i'm saying what i'm arguing is that it is is no longer you know this court is no longer able to go into the merits of our standing argument because of something that happened at no fault to us but the question a different way suppose that this case had been filed in superior court soley alleging violations of the on rule and it went to trial and judgment was entered and on appeal the plaintiff died wouldn't the estate be able to continue litigating the collection of that monetary judgment forget it would not be moot because the the whole reason that the players were able to get in federal court was because of the claim right that is the only reason that they were able to get in federal court and the only reason that the district court was able to exercise that supplemental jurisdiction was based on that claim and your federal claim was based on a substantial federal claim right a supplemental jurisdiction was attached to us yes your honor and so so what we are regardless of whether the federal claim goes out  no question that claim that cause of action is mooted by his death but i still don't understand why the estate can't collect for the damages that the district court awarded him for the prior violations that occurred while he right and so it goes into the principles of equity that were established and month singer and the us bank bancorp case which state that i again had we won on the merits the standing argument damages had already been incurred and starbucks didn't appeal why isn't that a final judgment which again is an asset that the state can recover again your honor the issue that we did raise the staining arguments on appeal right but we would have to agree that we would have to find that the district court legally erred in initially determining that there was standing right let's assume for  mean and so forth you would not argue that attorney fees are not appropriate that's not your argument your honor under our argument we we did argue or in in our briefing we did argue that if this court did reverse and vacate the judgment in its entirety then it should also vacate the attorney fiord because there's no longer a prevailing party but if we don't reverse it in its entirety then there's no quarrel with at least the fact that the plaintiff that is of value would be entitled to the fees right now if it wasn't if it wasn't make it in its entirety that's correct however we did request that the court remanded if it does find in favor if it didn't find in favor of a standing which would have in our opinion got rid of the entire case had it reversed on any of this the seating issue or the see the sales counter issue that to reverse that for the district court to determine based on like a limited success argument that there is now only a california claim with the district court have to review the attorneys under california attorney and if i was at the same as wouldn't be the state wouldn't be able to enforce the violation of what it couldn't go back to the just record and move for in order to show cause why starbuck should not be held in contempt i would be injunction i wouldn't know the answer to that question and could at this point but we have our injunction is intended to protect him into the future right and he can't there can't be a violation of the injunction as to those two claims as to this point of because no no question that it that it benefits other disabled persons but it's not a class action advice and the problem we're wrestling with here is that we've got an individual plaintiff who if i can use the term got an individualized that i i think i mean i agree with judge thomas saying but isn't the question whether this court is to get involved in the issue of respect to them for the injunction that was not appeal and clearly if it was challenged this this record or some other place is it's not likely that someone could enforce that injunction that it would be moche as it relates to the de but the is no question as to whether this court should involve itself and aspects of the judgment by law that are not here on appeal isn't that more the question  did have standing at the time the complaint was filed would only be able to proceed to address two items the only injunctive relief that starbucks appealed so by nature of not bring in the appeal and raising these issues in the opening brief starbucks already we've done that we asked to those two injunctions they argue that they were challenging all of them because they were challenging the theory authority the court had to enter the very well have the effect of benefiting other disabled patrons but the other disabled patrons may or may not have the ability to go and i suspect they would have to assert their own e t a if they encounter a similar violation that is technically a breach of mr colony's injunction but i don't think they would have standing to raise the stir colonies injunction as the basis for a contempt proceeding in the future  should be dealt with very carefully and the because judicial precedents are presumptive the correct they are valuable to the entire legal community as a whole they are not merely property of private correct in the future but it has already been awarded to the plaintiffs in this case and already been acquiesced to by starbucks i mean it is this it seems to me that if we have to send it back because of  both will have to appear but again before the district court to argue over whether or not the attorneys feel word should be reduced somewhat because of the fact that it's moot and now you have prevailed only on a portion of the case so the argument you're making it seems to me is a perfectly appropriate one to the district court in terms of not significantly reducing the feel word because of the fact that they didn't appeal to the issues but i don't think it's an argument that necessarily helps us here today in trying to decide whether we can just affirm the district court across the board which is what you're ging us to do or whether the law commands that idea claims are moot it's pretty clear and does the fact that they have become moot affect the attorney fee calculation at all relative to whether you  prevailing party in this litigation for purposes of fees doesn't the case law at least support the possibility that you as a rebelling party in a district court that when something becomes moo reduction because you didn't really prevail completely and i'm asking you as an argument this record should be looking at if we we have to send it back or is there any argument that you have prevail i mean what case law support  say you prevailed even if the matter becomes moot don't have the case law at hand because of this hapless downs  parties should necessarily be prejudiced in one way or the other so their equity compels for starbucks to get those issues that they did raise an appeal the injunctions stand even the judgment should stay on perhaps it cannot be enforced but just because there is a good legal reasoning that this record used honor i would just like to address it as a good us point that she raised during plaintiff's argument which is that we did appeal the entire judgment by raising that standing honor i would say that because of mr carney's passing that this court is unable to get into the merits of our standing argument because essentially our standing argument has to do with an intent to return to the facility and here it's