court the this court most recently and actually most comprehensively address the predicate for the injunctions that issued by the district court in the atkins case two years juda croyde competence of the court the federal court that wishes to use the all writs wishes to issue the judge and respectfully your honour's that's really the end of i think the discussions today because certainly what judge to course said and his basis in his statements on the record no no opinion was will be will avoid duplication for those judges out there fact that other judges may or may not have to do work writs act in an anti suit injunction are very powerful medicine and that something as simple as just generalized good case management is not likely to be something sufficient for that i wonder if there is any extent to which judge who of course might have been worrying about potential issue preclusion if the cases against the franchisees went forward in their respective districts does he say anything about that see that that i could at least see is a legal consequence he does not in the immediate area be not mutual of course because the franchisees are different then there is some there is offensive no neutral issue preclusion just as defensive i was that was course what i was going to say next it was certainly i think there's actually almost no likelihood and if there is even a theoretical likelihood of non  powerful medicine as you call it or supreme court said an extraordinary regni for exceptional circumstances you have to have more than just a hypothetical theoretical speculative basis for doing so it has to be and i think you could probably dr another court that happens every day in america of course no justice ginsburg made a similar point in taylor against churchill where i mean duplicated litigation does exist it's a cost of our system correct exactly as my points of the first as it has to affect the jews were both had the third is of course that's been narrowed tailored to the threat to the adjudicatory complex judge can court i'm going to say i think judge the course was trying to do that and he's made a number of exceptions to this injunction to allow the their rights with respect to the statue of a patient's right for the name you want to preserve their individual rights for the statute additions coquet are they presently able to take efforts that we would normally think happen in such cases to identify other similarly situated employees and former employees well what would in theory most certainly in other words another one of my clients who's in the court below could file a case and say  plaintiffs in the case plaintive nameplate who seem to be able to preserve their individual rights even if it's not economical to pursue the case it is one individual but at this point judge who orders or his practice of dealing with these waters would prevent efforts to provide notice identified well identify others provide notice and give them an opportunity to join those other cases in wyoming or new york or wherever right correct and that's a problem this merger concerned that is is a problem that although i don't think that the problem as far as you're concerned or is that too narrow i think it's too narrow and let me put it this way in at for example if you recall the facts beckons there was a pending settlement in in this district and there was an individual in missouri who wished to have their case go to trial and one could have said as to the individual missouri they're not prejudiced if i just put a temporary stop on your case while i hear the injunction for to let this settlement go through which was a worked on hard by all parties a great deal case management logic to it but the issue of whether or not there's prejudice to the individual i don't believe is actually relevant consideration at all because it is rather does the court have an threat to its jus to court competence so you're making a broad argument because of course we're not in the realm of the anti injunction act which has other motivating purposes comedy in particular but the examples of one federal court one federal district court and actually enjoying proceedings in other federal district courts are few and far between because the supreme court headstone has said that the inherent power court to take such actions is tightly constrained and that's not the way we manage litigation correct so it's really i think a point of principle i think what judge hamilton i was curious about this too i thought the biggest problem was with people in districts outside the state of illinois who have opted in to the litigation here are at risk of losing their  ability to sue their franchise ors if they can't file that action too because this action is all joint employers stuff right so so the action here is just against the parent if i can call it  against the franchisees in the relevant districts and i would say after the supreme court's bristol myers squibb decision last term they have to go to the district they can't do it here actually right bristol myers entered my head y because of the fact has narrowed yet further right the places to be clear you know so you're really forced by bristol myers if you want to sue the franchisees and if somebody says i'm not and put all my eggs in the parent basket you know i would like to also have a case  joined this was your question judge animals and upon their filing the cases so in other words are over six hundred individuals who joined the case downstairs and there's no blanket injunction on all of them jimmy johnson i'd ask for that rather as soon as the case of spot jimmy john learned jimmy johns learns about him we've actually provided jimmy johns with those cases as we violent them a jimmy johns then goes to the court below but my point ultimately course gave moving along you know whether this is the kind of thing that censure the winter for part test for injunctions or whether we really should take a more flexible approach is less interesting to me because in any event you have to show that the the that normal remedies are inadequate and i don't see that and it's a matter of fact what i do see in the supreme court's decisions is real cautio toward these kinds of exercises of equitable power and i'm having trouble given how the court has spoken repeatedly about the fact that there is going to be duplicative litigation it would have to stay in judge in a completely different part of the country you may not proceed with this suit you know and it's very clear whether you tell the party or whether you tell the judge now it's about the same thing it's a very very charge and we do have the m t o process for cases that need nationwide management yes in this particular matter your honor the judge in joined up in plain ups thirteen of them i know were before him he stated in his transcript in the second hearing that he had no power to tell them that their goodness what to do or to enjoin the franchisees so we wrote the injunction and then joined only those thirteen individual that what's the royal decision are traditionally cautious approach to equitable powers you have the supreme court over and over again saying you don't just issue an injunction and if that and if the judge took a course had looked at something analogous to the winter factors i think you might have realized that this medicine is too strong your honor to that point i think the context would be for particular orders that judge her cora said entered to craft a case management plan beginning in january of two thousand why did his case management plan have an effect on an assistant managers sued in johnson isn't saying that assistant manager isn't employed by his franchisee there might also be a joint employer issue which right certainly before a judge to court just to use your analogy of the wyoming case what is the problem with that employers who deal with parallel claims around the country are often subject to different sorts of discovery orders the judge in one district will allow what you managed to defeat in another and it's asking what's wrong with just letting the franchise see cases go forward for all you know the judge in wyoming would take a look at what's going on illinois and put a stay on certain forms of inconsistency i call it just caution if you women going you're not being a joint employer then their only claims and we have to assume for now that they're valid on the merits seems to me for this purpose then their only claims are against their franchisees they're entitled to protect their rights seems like america yes but the thirteenth case they filed the men's case in the northern district of georgia hedge their bets again insofar as catching jump to ever hedge your b that's what any good lawyer does they argued that in mans that there was an unknown unnamed third party joint employer to be determined so they didn't like the orders the judge could chorus put in place to adjudicate these issues filed lawsuits all over the country to escape those orders see that's what issue preclusion does for you though if judge who chorus resolves this case the way you would like it to be resolved and decides that this is not a joint employer situation i would be shocked if you did not show up in georgia and anywhere else around the country with that word are in hand saying this issue has been conclusively resolved it was necessary  litigated actively by the parties it meets all of the criteria for issue preclusion end of discussion as with the plaintiff so it was a different ruling but in this particular case all right saying why is that not enough because the judge realize that have never seen a case because that far you have transformed national litigation just three judges have been joining each other day and night because everybody's got litigation but this was a very unique situation  situation well in this particular case he had spent two and a half years crafting meeting with the lawyers on a monthly basis and figuring out how to get to the residence at a very conscientious judge as are many other district judges around the country i every potential point right because the plaintiffs selected their case theory and sued jimmie johnson a theory that it controlled everything and you have and you've asserted that no doubt a vigorous defense to that theory so anybody who thinks that they've got a good claim for overtime i would think is entitle to pursue their other remedies ray and judge choruses order allowed them and they filed those cases there are in place they're just not going forward in the real question though is about the folks who have not yet joined right right you want to keep them out right you have not leaned on your franchisees to agree to broader tolling agreements have you cannot there their own business we don't  you can't control them they're separate parties and so the real what the effect of this order is that let's say in kansas or california we've got ten or twenty or fifty assistant store managers store managers who have similar claims may or may not have heard about them and judge who courses order prevents these plaintiffs and those district courts from giving notice in an opportunity to join those actions to those of course that's those are the stakes right correct but it doesn't preclude any of those nine opt ins refine their own lawsuit if they find out or a federal court sure but it's we you and i know all of us know it's perfectly normal and f l s a cases collective action cases at this point to provide discovery to identify other potential similarly situated employees and to notify them right that's correct and that's prevented  right that is prevented for these thirteen individuals or anybody else to know it doesn't prevent others where you've come in every time a new person we have to assume could be anyone else because there's no legal principle that limit thirteen certainly the letter doesn't apply to a california state court let's put it this way suppose somebody who is not a named point of in this case the assistant store manager in los angeles files an action why is it so why are you why would it be so much worse if the person is also a plaintiff in the chicago case because those plaintiffs were a party to a series of orders that managed the case  particular parameters and thought this was the best way forward we think that there are rigid rules here they all writs act needs to be flexible and practical the sports realize that and we think in this particular instance this was a narrowly tailored and carefully crafted order by the district court judge who had his hands on this case for two and a half years we respectfully submit that the case should be ahead of two and a half years is there been any merits in discovery now because of the sequencing it's all been joined employer discovery the motion for summary judgment was briefed as of september and is pending for decision if that is denied the next sequence in the cases the merits discovery well actually won't happen there's a reason to go forward in any event right because you've got about ten percent of the players here are employed in corporate stories right that's correct so they're going to have a claim regardless of the resolution of the joint employer that's correct and so i do some merits discover well judge gore stopped that that was an inefficient way to use the party's resources so he said we're not going to touch that until we're done with the joint player issue because that impacts about those reasons we respectfully submit the order should be a firm thank you ok thank you i think for the mr lesser deal judge and in fact the exceptions that it's hamilton asked me about earlier shows that he's micromanaging cases that are not before him another federal district courts this concern of overlap and what may happen even when they're punitive collectively actions all across the country or overlapping class and collectives since two thousand and ten it's basically stop doing so leaving each case should be heard on its own merits one last point i'd like to bring back the the threat the concern the judge the course might have had about end run of his orders that's not a threat to his adjudicatory competence why because of something that's discovered in well as other cases such as brief that there should be a remained and allowed just course maybe to press to another decision this coursers prudence is quite clear that if the wall writs the authority has been exceeded which it has here that what happens is may have some authority to actually put in place an injunction for which as authority the parties can be addressed that below but the junction does not stand place thank you all right thank you thanks to both counts out we will take this case i'm sure if i stand and the court is now going to take a brief recess