and i represent the plaintiffs in the palace in this matter d j st john imputed classes everyone that's similarly situated in yours i'm glad to be here because i feel like i've been stuck in the fable of the emperor's new clothes  we know what the law is but for some reason we're pretending we don't or that it doesn't apply it applies squarely three point seven six nine of the california rules  court and i'm going to quote from mark versus spencer case on page twenty of my brief says rule three point seven six nine was designed to protect class members from potential conflicts of interest with their attorneys by requiring the full disclosure of all fee agreements in any application for dismissal or settlement of a class action ok let's take that as a given i guess what i'm probably with in this case if i understand the facts correctly any excess fees in this case would not have gone back into the damages award in your client would never received a penny of whatever reduction took place under the circumstances how does she have any standing to even raise this issue well the little box like this if someone's willing to in this case pay thirty million dollars to settle the dispute right there was the verdict for twenty three million and they said we're willing to pay this additional seven million to make this go away what's to stop the attorneys from saying you know what the class is unhappy they want to appeal instead of the seven million you we're going to give us if you give them two million dollars and you give us five right then the class will get a little bit more you know i mean that's not the facts of this case if i understand it correctly counsel in this case the class including your client settled for a certain amount of money they got it was over in effect except for the attorney fees and then the attorneys met with the state it was i guess the city in this case and it worked out what the attorney fees were going to be that's what's involved in that case you know greater than you know greater than and i was never any possibility of any more money going to your client verdict and then the class a lot of class members wanted to appeal and this was there was a mediator right involved post verdict that met with the parties the parties negotiated this settlement they said you don't appeal we want to appeal and we'll take exactly seven million seven hundred sixteen thousand five hundred ten dollars right so again they could've negotiated for that some of that to go to the class they could appealed it's basically they were ceasing with litigation to make an appeal sometimes half the battle especially in a case like this that was so complicated that was litigated for eleven years an appeal might might still be ongoing with respect counsel i don't see where you're helping to hear that the reality is the class numbers portion of the case whether a mediator was involved or whatever it was settled right ok it was last was never settlement was entered the judgment was entered and then as he loves it point to that there was this stipulation which is a settlement when when you agreed to say hate will pout put down our guns you put down your guns that's a settlement so it's a post judgment settlement ok but bottom line is it was a settlement your client was going to get her portion of whatever was in that settlement right that's fair so all that's left over which was carved out from the settlement was one of the attorney's going to get it was between the pay or and the pays that's what these gentlemen are here for your client who was part of the class whose issue was  settled and is going to get the money that she was entitled to under that settlement my question to you again is what standing does she have to bring a claim at this point or under no circumstances will she get a dime more even if these folks get less well if if she had not had her appellate rights to trade away they could have appealed they were traded away that exactly sounds right so she should have the right under three point seven six nine whenever there's any agreement for attorney's fees any right you are huck is well ok fine cheap maybe she doesn't get a penny more but she could have appealed and then maybe the judgment would be reversed in some fashion and so that's another opportunity to go back at it and have another bite of the apple right that's exactly right so now you're complaining that she didn't get sufficient notice because the wrong provision was used that this is the state provision but who ordered compliance with that particular provision it was the state court right so what did these folks do did they violate the court order to just follow the state court directive in terms of what to do and it seemed to me from looking at the record the court told them what to do to provide notice and they followed that right that's where i respectfully begin disagreed the court didn't consider it at all the court took a judgment that it had already drafted and it had spaces for the attorneys fees and costs and normally there would be a motion for attorney's fees which the defendants all considered they actually filed an extension for more time to file it and then instead of actually notice provisions were in the original judgment they didn't change there's no evidence that the judge considered oh yeah that that that original notice component which applies in cases they go through with judgment was reconsidered after the settlement so the judge never said old look this is a settlement i need to reconsider notice they deceptively just said ok great we have this stipulation which is a settlement and they know they should have followed three point six seven nine and that is what we're complaining about in this case you know counsel with respect that aside from the standing issue which obviously is very important to us under ricker feldman what are we even involved in this for why are you here before a federal court this is state court action involving state law you're complaining about the actions of a state court and a settlement in the state court why why is a federal court involved at all well that's all your honor it's it all has to do with standing right in the cases we've cited that you're going backwards to my question danny is one issue right might you do it even if you had standing right what what right do we have is a federal  appellate court to what effect attack a state court judgment based on state law it's are we barred by worker fellman from doing that i don't believe so your honor there's the deprivation of due saying judge on the state court you didn't make these people comply with the correct notice provisions and so therefore you deprived a class member of her due process rights that were telling the state quite what to do well it was the defendants who have ten attorneys who all market that they are they're experiencing class action litigation so they were well aware of three point six seven nine apply number one this was never a judged it was not part of the judgment it was roped in and signed as if it were but there was no consideration of a single billable hour a single declaration but you're  nothing there was no judgment on here attacking the state court judgment there was a judgment you're attacking how it came to be you're attacking an alleged violation of state court rules you know you're entitled to litigate your case what you're not entitled do is have a federal appellate court tell a state court what to do based on state law unless there are federal constitutional or state or federal statutory or regulatory issues that in effect preempt the state i don't understand why those cases before us i don't i don't think if i have standing ask you about that you have not given me an answer to that and i don't know how we can help you as a separate matter because the record fel while i run your honor if i could if i could address the standing and then the record please do please we've cited the cases that basically say that the right to object is is a constitutional due process right under state law another you're saying that if you have a right to object to a class action settlement under state law that you have federal you process constitutional rights that basically are not barred by ricker foemen fell in other words based on your analysis it sounds like the federal court could come in and redo almost any state judgement regardless of its nature regardless of the rules on which it is base to file an appeal right if if a class council can deceive the class for sixty days then they lose the right to appeal we would love to be in the court of appeals in california court of appeals but for sixty days the class was with their hands and they're literally calling their counsel saying so what's going on oh no no don't worry about we're not going to appeal why not there wasn't this clear situation which is what the court has to do under three point six seven nine is step in is a fiduciary for these people and say wait is what's happening there is that's why they're called  deceived the class for sixty days saying that the state court i mean i just i'm there's a disconnect but honestly there's no there's no i mean there are cases it's a that even if there's fraud on the court that you can't bring that case to the court i would be surprised it's not so much there's a strict sixty day deadline on appeal and basically even notice was not adequate here and that was a deprivation of due process and due process is something protected by the fifth and fourteenth amendments of the united states constitution if you're right any state court judgment of any nature can be attacked in federal court and you're not right please the court i am edward walton of procopio i represent would have been referred to as the city of san diego defendants in this case we have divided up our time i'm going to address and i hope and very short order the question  of the waiver of the challenge to the injury in fact finding that the that the court made below judge curio my colleagues will address the issue of standing in case you don't buy into the waiver argument and record feldman which has already been discussed with the plants counsel and i want to just cut to the chase because given the comments of the court the really the only point i think i want to make at this point is  that the plaintiff in opening failed to address that old question of standing that was an issue that just essential wasn't addressed our view is that that  failure to address that issue was an intentional choice made if you take a look at footnote four on page twenty five of the opening brief made for the purpose of saying look i don't have to more money even if the amount of attorney fees were reduced is there any way she could have standing under federal law i do not believe so but i just don't see standing here at all i mean  that and i think that the plaintiff's council didn't see it either so there was a conscious choice made to our to avoid the argument of standing injury in fact the injury in fact component of the three components of standing and instead substitute the consciously substitute the argument of loss of a fairness hearing or loss of due process rights as a substitute for the argument as to what standing ought to be based upon whatever whatever other arguments are made we don't have any ability to decide a case where there is no standing right yes and that's why we're here is to ask you to confirm the court's order of dismissal on either one of two grounds one being the failure lack of standing or the record feldman doctrine my argument is simply that because the plaintiff waived the argument attacking the standing element of the lack of standing up element then you can confirm on that basis alone  who urged that you confirm on the basis of standing because that was argued in the reply brief in kind of an ambush fashion and i think the last pretty clear including the case that you can't do under state law whether the rules were complied with right correct your honor there's no standing there is no jurisdiction rooker feldman applies we don't even get to due process so it's it was take the plaintiffs are humans best case for  didn't give them notice or sufficient notice or so on what was their remedy that their their remedy your honor was i think what you were hinting at in your questioning was if if there was some sort of lack of notice that had to be addressed to the state law court can't cite me some california law that says i can't your honor it wasn't something raised in any of the briefs at all well what it was raised clearly in the briefs is there are contentions contentions that they made this morning who knew what they were saying they were saying that the dirt had been done to them and that these rules were for closing them from getting an appellate court to look at it so it seemed to me to way to get back to that would be to say oh no you had a way to get a remedy under state law you've told  they're not complaining of injuries relating to the judgments in their opposition to the motion to dismiss which is in the excerpts of record on page forty four they say the goal in the present would a geisha and it's not to overturn the state court judgment but to but to challenge the fairness with the attorney right so that's the only thing before i understand that but that's ok but you would agree with me that that's a big ticket item shall we say it's absolutely a big ticket ok so where was there remedy to do that well there's clearly no standing whatsoever in terms of the fairness hearing issue there ms st john had no vested right in these attorney's fees it's important to note that there was a judgment that was entered there were statutory attorneys fees that were awarded statutory attorneys fees belong to the attorney not to the class members i think we get the point about federal standing more through judge  california state law where your opponent is simply challenging the attorney fees fairness of the attorney fees is there any statute within the state class action for raj statutes and regulations that would allow someone to seek rehearing or motion for reconsideration or something where you don't have a federal standing gordon in race mile sculley william rathbone and timothy branson council for the city of san diego in the underlying action and my intent is to address the river feldman doctrine i think the court has correctly hit upon the fact this is a textbook application of the rocker feldman we have you know i think we actually do think you have anything to offer us about what they're remedy could have been in state court well your honor in that regard there would be an opportunity for  this individual who has brought the underlying district court action to intervene in the sapir ier court case and to move to vacate the amended judgment or the stipulation as to the least me a little comfort in saying ok there's no standing or there's no and there and with rick or feldman doctor and we they don't get any relief from us and so in my mind i want to think well maybe they could have gotten relief someplace else  that's that's what i'm probing here and i thought that that the my takeaway from the appellant's argument was that the that his client had been not been appraised of what was going on so how could they have intervene notice and the issue is which notice procedure was employed which in this case the court elected that the sapir your court elected to direct that notice be given under c r c three point seven seven one it's appellant contention it should have been rule of court three point seven six nine but again that does the difference being one you get the fairness hearing and the other when you don't there are different procedural requirements and there is a more formalized process with three point objection about the amount of because the attorney said and settled at that point right there were just of structure set up well there was an ex parte hearing and which time the counsel for all parties were present and it was put on the record what the terms of the stipulated attorney fees would be but again as the court observed previously it's not a question of some in title meant by this no i understand the point but would maybe it's easier for you to answer if you hypothesize a different case not your case where there is many much nefarious activity going on when i'm trying to do is to find out what could have been done in state court honor again i think the procedures that i've described in terms of intervening moving to vacate set aside the judgment of those are the procedures that are available under california state law and in this circumstance again they don't apply because there was no entitle meant to the stipulated amount of the attorney fees and i'm not in a position to argue hypotheticals because we're here to address the facts in the underlying case that give rise to the district court action in that regard so undoubtedly there there may be a hypothetical scenario not this particular set of circumstances that could in theory give rise to an to fees because it reduces the amount of the class award or class settlement and but that's a different issue than what the one that is before this court or was before judge curio i have two quick questions  do i understand you say that there that the plaintiff and others in the class were notified under some section whether it was the right one or not but they were notified of the out of the settlement the rough amount the attorney fees and the whole procedure they did not object right correct ok the i guess the next question i would ask is is there any way that she could perform the role of an object or with respect only to the attorney fees portion of the case of it could she have moved disappear or court for permission to be an object or as to the attorney for the fortune of the case as to the attorney fees that were stipulated as to the amended judgment that right was hers to exercise she did to intervene in the case to seek standing to do so and then to move to vacate the amended judgment or the stipulated feel ward and to the extent the court the relief was not granted then she would have apart though she had due process through the state statutes and she did follow them but she had those rights to challenge it and she just and do what the state law required  jurisdiction over this settlement the amended judgment and then the final judgment as the prior judgments all provided that he retain jurisdiction to enforce modify exercis advance or cause in the event that she felt there was some irregularity about it importantly at the t r o hearing conducted by judge curial judge curial asked mr march really do you have any evidence that judge prust one was a part of this alleged conspiracy and he responded i have no evidence to support that so there was a built in mechanism in the state court which was equipped to deal with any concerns she had in part that she was told exactly what and this guy does this is a terribly important point the the function and role of the class representatives have not really been underscored in the briefing and if you read the stipulation and the word for counties cities it says the attorneys fees were approved by the class representatives not just by the class council but by the class representatives so if  to redress before class representatives as well we were you're out of time let me ask my colleagues the other ok i have additional question you all did amazingly well and your time's a little bit over but the thank you you have some talking about really people in the mobile home park who were we had they had attorneys putting all the pressure on them saying we're going to lose the entire thing unless you settle this is about attorneys who had a seven point seven million and they were not given the right to object and the difference between three point seven seven one which is like way way way way i thought everybody agreed that they were given the chance to object they just didn't object and not given the correct chance to object know that they could not have the right to object they did not they did not get proper notice and say hey you have a class right if you don't agree with this with the section i was given under but couldn't you have gone in and said hey you gave those on the wrong section were entitled why not  who's basically not represented at this point because of the conflict with their own attorneys are saying let's settle this right they don't notice this and the notice was extremely deceptive it looks the same i encourage you to take a look at them we w time is up and both sides up if you know you could just talk about it thank you we appreciate the argument just made the case just argued is submitted thank you gentleman all for your argument