all right our third case for this morning is right against  claim the only way to get that relief because he's individual claim for injunctive relief would become moot because the day after the cases filed the only way to get the relief is to the class claim so there wasn't a class by the defendant not to contest an appeal of the issue and i i do not understand situations you have situations where somebody said kind of a gerstein like thing were somebodies claim becomes moot because it's one of those capable of repetition yet evading review sorts of claims it's a very short time and then life has moved on but the cases in which the proposed class representative chooses to settle his claim are somewhat different and if the class has never been certified then sucker there there is a class out there and you don't have even the the assurances that the other criteria of rule twenty three have been satisfied so so i was concerned as well about the implications of the fact that the only proffered name plaintive chooses to settle this claim before certification well he chose to settle the claim after certification had been denied well in other words there's no certification there's no there's no entity called the class which if you then have the class named representatives claim moved out there's the class itself as an entity it's understood to continue other people can intervene you know different is that who are you representing that your dear there is no certified class there's no person according to what you just said is any relationship to a certified class because he carved himself off when he decided to accept the route sixty eight offer there's just this a little bit cryptic language in the in the offer excluding attorneys fees and costs accrued concerning pursuing it as a class action i'm not sure what to make of that but but then at the same time you have the all claims action i'm just not sure that that as we now have to us we've got something we can get our hands around well what i'll say is that i think we're we may not be talking enough about the distinction between the two classes and b three classes well that should all matter actually because what either kind of class requires or satisfying all part all four parts twenty three a i know that he's resolved whatever money may be involved with the b three point two but i don't see any reservation in the settlement that you know we're agreeing that you can pursue an injunction against us there'd be all sorts of merits issues i could foresee with such a claim would lead to can't pursue an injunction i know we can't as an individual he has no right to get an injunction because there's no reason to think he's ever going to be in this position again that's right he's he's his claim is too speculative and the mere the mere prospect of future arrest victims but the court wouldn't draw on those allegations in this case the evidence shows about once per month somebody is held over forty eight hours and tell us that he's never come forward with a policy or with the argument though we don't do this well he but you know i mean i have a problem with this thirty or twenty nine i guess without him or the thirty ish number because first of all i don't know what the denominator is i don't know you know maybe we know that there will be people in the future it's not just an allegation we know it from the evidence joining these unknown people is impracticable they might not just stop after this case well it might not want to pay five thousand dollars to that nature right they could do that but they haven't they haven't they haven't told us that they have in order to comply with the law but they're you know you mentioned twenty nine of the delay here from defense counsel they actually located a few more in another case that they're working what we have the other point about why it's impractical to join is that only somebody who files the case while he is under the unconstitutional policy that we're challenging here is going to have the right to see for a class if it were never to get to court soon enough for somebody to get injunctive relief for himself but going to have to be somebody who files it within the v a within the few hours when the it's being violated and if it's very hard to imagine somebody offer and appeal the defendants agreed with that interpretation of that it wasn't until responding to the court's order for supplemental briefing that the defendant said oh no wait we didn't mean for you to appeal so there was never an intended or a belief that they were buying peace to this rule sixty whether it was meant to settle only the playing time on the merits as opposed to the class certification issue as well and where attorneys depending on the amount and so forth and the procedural history of the case when you get to the point of a judgment so the offer as it states did intend to reasonably compensate the plaintiff for his attorney's fees and costs no we didn't know how much he's the plaintiff's attorneys get into the case at that point and we didn't know if they tried to contact other potential plaintiffs but we did intend as it states in the will sixty eight offered to reasonably compensate the it's the plaintiff for his damages to extent that he could claim some and a reasonable measure of attorney's fees and costs so and it does say all claims so the intent was to resolve the entire dispute response brief we thought pastor was a roadblock pastor deals with jurisdiction in three or four sentences without a lot of facts there and if you just read those three or four sentences it sounds like our case and that you know  and acceptance from that case to our supplemental filing in in that case it's clear that the parties contemplated that the agreement to settle i was going to be a vehicle to appeal the lack of certification of the class they carved out or reserve the right to appeal the class certification tonight all specifically in the offer and judgment in the past or case and in their case i think that gets to the point of the amount of settlement they agreed to settle for ten dollars we agreed to settle for five thousand so you know i think that's an indication that past our jurisdiction wasn't an issue in that case and that's certainly not a criticism of judge pozner not flushing that out full it just wasn't an issue so the you know that there are a lot of people out there you don't necessarily know who they are you know but there's a general practice it is shoe that could be addressed and probably should be addressed by means of injunctive relief so why isn't it enough to introduce evidence you know whether it's about how many school children or how many you know people who drive down you know michigan avenue every day or something you know there are a lot of them and so they have introduced concrete evidence showing that the number of people in what they allege to be a riverside violation but that a little bit to one side but there allegation is approximately one a month and so it doesn't take a you arithmetic genius to figure out that pretty soon you're getting a pretty substantial number of people even if the denominator is huge i mean i don't know how many people get arrested in calumet city every year do you know that number i don't know  know it's hundreds if not into the thousands right serco this one a month or twelve a year over hundreds is maybe not the biggest number but they have constitutional rights too you know and they shouldn't be kept longer than the forty eight hours t riverside gives unless one of the riverside exceptions applies riverside is not is we certainly can assure you we no hard and fast rule but why is numerosity the problem since there are going to be a whole set of injunctive relief type cases where you don't sit down and count noses the whole point is the noses can't be counted well you know in the district court in this case i felt that the class wasn't well defined so it didn't qualify as a b well that's a different reason altogether the numerosity might say ok will grant you that they're going to be a lot of people over time but what the it's speculative i mean you're relying on and that more people committing crimes are being arrested for crimes and not only that but that there are then held for more than forty eight hours because the judge balor is going to tell us that over the course of his career he hasn't run out of people who commit crimes we can always hope that they  claim so you know using their math and using the statute of limitations you're looking at every two years potentially twenty three twenty four people being potentially part of a class or having their rights violated meanwhile hundreds have not so i'll tell you if we actually do have proper appellate jurisdiction here and that's a big if that if we do what worries me more sort of on your side or in favor of your side is whether it's possible to assess whether any given person's riverside rights have been violated without looking at that individual's situation and seeing if this was one of those cases where a longer was ok or whether it's in the general run of cases where it isn't well as you mentioned it's meant to be a flexible standard in gerstein county of riverside in those cases the plaintiff certainly relied on those those there was a statutory scheme where restes were needed even allowed a probable cause hearing so here's a different case where you have arrestees let's just i guess we're suing the vast majority to get that hearing within forty eight hours and maybe point one persons per month ha certainly could require that i don't think it's necessary i don't think it's controlling i think our language here was all encompassing and the acceptance was unqualified just as important so you know that takes us it's a one hundred eighty from the pastor case which is what they're hindering their argument on in terms of jurisdiction but so no i don't think their kind of language is necessary i think you look at what you have in front of you and here it's that all claims why would it hurt the calumet city to have an injunction in place that said roughly you know all arrestees have to have a determination within forty eight hours unless the supervising court makes an express finding of you know for one of the two riverside exceptions you know and they were just something like as is why we run the speedy trial actually now we have a speedy trial time clock but if the judge is going to extend it the judge got it put on the record why it's extendable well you know that that was out there i think it's well defined now at the at the time again of gerstein in county riverside you know that the supreme court was still kind of crafting what this right was supposed to look like and it's close to be flexible it's supposed to be but hiller rest either situations are all unique and different why they might not have got over to the markham courthouse for a probable cause hearing and in forty eight hours and i wish i could say that it never happens but it's rare it's rare and you know so that was out there you know to is this necessary to have an injunction to require calumet city to comply with the law they're aware of the law and again regrettably it once in a while it happens someone is not over forty eight hours but it's out that's the burden on the city then to lawsuit just report this case than say you could never have an injunction that you know involves these types of persons but they said this case each just we haven't met the elements you haven't met the criteria if you give me a well defined  class or proposed class so it we're not saying could never happen but this isn't the case this isn't the case you know these twenty four people that were aware of for thirty people can  file their own lawsuits there could be a joint or there's other procedures other than a class action and that's what the district court said within his discretion class is not appropriate in this case based on the submissions  forty eight of the city of chicago can do it i think tell you the city can do it too and the other thing is this question of who the aggrieved person is the degree people are the unknown as members of the class who will come in the future that opposing counsel is saying there there and that i think that's recognized by the garrity case and it's recognized as long somebody new had to come in and intervene even in garrity court didn't just let the lawyers run the rest of the litigation without both counsel who take the