either representing those individuals or you are right that at least we can say there's you know there's an organization that they're a member of which you can represent which may this or that interest and then there's the individual's right to remove the lawyer for the individuals we nationally we want your honor in this so how how can you ask how can you come into court and ask for certain people to be a party has a plaintive without being the lawyer for those potential or punitive plaintiffs that i just don't and i see i think that's what you're asking for i just don't see how that works i mean i was in the trial lawyer i'm not sure but it sounds strange to me that he would come into court and say except these people as plaintiffs but i'm not their lawyer i mean it's like make them plaintiffs even though they're not here saying we want to be plaintiffs were doing when we saw the two men not comply we wanted to had those members as well and the district court to see what you have to represent them when you want when you want her  number of individuals are all of those individuals members of the association yes and those individuals did anybody speak to them individually in terms of do you want this to happen did you have  letters or petitions or something that would say john mary and bill are part of this two hundred whereas steven somebody else art that is how did you get the two hundred and how did you communicate situated individuals which are those two hundred people who suffered the same injury as well that we know that a class was that an attempt at class certification because there was no class certification am i right no wasn't you know i say the police beat me up and i represent the other seven people there were beaten up with me can i just do that by saying it organization gets relief you want relief on the part of these two hundred people right racket usually have rights and all they have to ask for instead of having someone else ask to have them be you that's asking for i guess your argument is that the organisation has standing to raise claims for individuals who would otherwise do in their own right is that your sir that's your argument your party is already a party you don't need to have more people become parties where you are now you're asking for them to become parties when they want parties before you know represent them it just seems not connect to me and that was not when the court issued its own or what the district crowd failed to do was to consider the competing interests of the parties and the likelihood of presidents to the apollo and this case there would be no prejudice to the opponent whatsoever because adding additional teachers would only have the consideration of what the bapi award would be they would be no evidence there would be no additional discovery nothing would be involved in this case other than the district court determining the level of them just now this circuit in this court has long decided by this circuit have consistently ruled that what the district court is effectively done would be the equivalent of a father bringing home a candy bar that these people were known i mean they still have different claims and allegations that could be raised before the court if it goes back to the district court time of the deposition the person who came to the deposition was can foster and he only name five teachers at that particular deposition so when the matter moved forward and association you we've talked about approximately two hundred but as i understand it i'm i right you submitted some kind of a spreadsheet with the names of i think it said two hundred three is that correct  yes which included the plaintiffs over here the five that's who we're going to see over here five ok my question is for any or all of those two hundred three did you have any kind of individual document from them that is did simply the association say here's two hundred three people go to it well  two hundred three had also been dismissed and association told us to move forward on their behalf and was this ineffectively or the people that were known to the association to have been dismissed  you're a lawyer and you want people to be parties you they retain you heard at least you say i would like to represent you and judge boggs asked you was there any individual contact with those people i didn't get the answer now sir there was no you were requesting you wanted them to become individual party so that they could get back pay that's our all right so you agree that you want them to be parties and they are not now and they are when you're asking they're not parties yet otherwise you would be asking to make them parties right ok so if you're asking them to be parties isn't it normal when you're asking people to be part when you're asking the court to make certain people parties to make sure that those parties either have been you may place a court here again on behalf of the shelby county board of education and superintendent dorsey hobbs and i will be splitting this argument with mr haas tack on behalf of the individual plaintiffs and i'll be taking ten minutes and he will be taking five that initially this argument has been limited to the motion to join as the court recognizes that is an abuse of discretion  standard of review the district court based heard decision based the court based its decision on timing only based on the court's scheduling order which set a november twenty eighth two thousand and fourteen date for joined of parties the motion to join these parties was filed october thirteenth two thousand and sixteen and the court found that those two years with nothing further that it was not reasonable and that she would not allow deposition of this into t was taking it did provide a corporate representative that was standing in the shoes of the organization so the organizations books and records all of that are within the knowledge of this corporate representative presumably and the question was asked repeatedly you know who else might be affected by this what other members might you have because the district in that the defendants are trying to to to figure out what you know what is the possible number of individual plaintiffs and of course you've seen the close to the deposition there was a first one or two and th ballard and newman and then a third they're referred to in the footnote in the damages opinion right there you're saying that there was a third one but it's not on any of our records pamela haynes was a nother person suits now would they be from your point of view let's assume you lose on everything else would they be barred by statutes of limitations or anything of that sort that interestingly we raised statute of limitations as a defense with regard to pamela haynes she was the last person to file and we argued that the one year statute of limitations for the one nine hundred eighty three claim would apply as well court ruled that you know it was hard to determine there's a three year statute intimacy a six year statute intimacy for breach of contract and then a catchall ten year she ruled that the no applicable statute of limitations had been had run at that point so so i don't know i can't stand here today and say we don't know it at least at least off the you know top of your head you don't have a killer argument on the one hand which cuts both ways in the sense that at least it it cuts down the unfairness of if we were to rule against the appellant we'd say ok you know get a get a lawyer get a good representation contract and have  argument you seem to say to like well we fired three hundred but really they're only ten or so that were really damage that may be too few but i take it are you kind of implying that out of these two hundred there are a lot that would have no problem at all because hundred list and resume only that would have been something the district court would have had to do it wouldn't have been just checking a box right and it found that it did not even have to get to that step now that appellants and this matter have raised well the school system knew so there's no no i mean for one thing we have no idea which people are members of him see him as see him as cea or not on first glance it looked like quite a few people on that list didn't even have tenure i mean so they're in a completely different class of people but we never got to that point of actually examining those names i mean i will tell you that the list for reemployment for that year which hat was entered into this case was less than fifteen people and so and quite a few of those have made individual appearances i don't know others chose not to they may not have wanted to be involved in a lawsuit but it's certainly their writing are you saying that's all that were put on the that's all that existed after the first few weeks of the year you know and some of those people elected to retire some of the people said we're not interested in anymore we're going to retire anyway i mean that's not necessary for the court to know that i'm just saying that you know this argument of prejudice it's been in no way proved there's been no evidence of it and if the evidence had gone forward there probably be opposite evidence but in any event i think the court questions as to standing are really the most important because organizational standing doesn't imply damages and individual standing does and we don't have individual plaintiffs at this point some have chosen to be represented by motion i don't see how there's any other way it could be done i think there has to be representation and an individual appearance by that person otherwise they wouldn't be subject to the court i mean they would be subject to the rules of discovery if they were actually was skeptical of the argument when it was first brought to me that subject matter jurisdiction wouldn't exist here because of an interlocutory order but that appears to be exactly what they are holes that the court had dismissed and interlock torrie order all federal cases at that point the very same plaintiff moved to him in an add an extra state law case and the court said no as of right now there is no federal claim to add on it to be tended to and so when i went back and read that that's something that's the exact same situation is here so when they are bringing these claims at this point there is no subject matter jurisdiction to add on to at this point because at this point the court ruled this is for is should these particular plaintiffs be allowed to bring claims into federal court at this point when the federal cause of action which is on appeal that does appear to be what bear has held from a procedural standpoint then with we don't need to reach that if we agree with any of your other humans that's that's it that's exactly right your honor and i do think that we have given the court quite a few  reasons in addition to the valid reason that the district court used to deny this motion for jointer i'm these people have a remedy they think that they could have filed their suits  they presumably still could i have no idea what the defenses would be at this point and i'm not promising that we wouldn't have good defenses at this point but it's certainly not our fault that there's been a delay on the part of the individual plaintiffs who may seek damages  and since this appeal did raise the due process claim as well but it was not raised on arguments if there's nothing further on that's all i have  good morning again your honor for hostile act again for the individual plaintiffs i have very little to add to what ms patterson said i would i would simply emphasize that there's really an overarching flaw with this which is has been identified by your orders already which is to say that now that it is alter clear that the only basis being asserted here for for jurisdiction is as organizational standing it is the law is really this could be disposed of very very easily on a lack of jurisdiction because if there's no standing there's no article three jurisdiction to to entertain do with the argument that kind of was aimed at you about you didn't that this should be allowed because you i guess you didn't didn't go forward with these other people you just focused on for them i guess that's the nature of the art well and i can't really there's nothing in the record and i can't speak to anything that probably wouldn't be privileged or work product as to why those decisions were made it is definitely clear that fewer than two hundred people have any kind of  had any kind of damages here you have any comment on whether counsel for an organization has an obligation to the individuals in their individual capacity to represent them individually well the or in the organization has has what it has in organization we have a legal services program that provides legal services for members pending a determination of merit  by the organization and its lawyers that's that open that's open to all members who approach the organization i'm asking whether there is some sort of ethical obligation ethical or moral obligation for association's counsel also to represent individuals there does no obligation i know of your honor to represent individual members irrespective of what of those members willingness to participate in a lawsuit irrespective of determination of whether there's a merit meritorious claim to be had that's all i ask you because the association is asking for damages on an individual basis when the association they have standing in that regard they have standing to to to secure an overall declaratory ruling just as they would if if an injunction were were sought but not not an individualized ruling as to each one there's a dispute it's clearly disputed whether or not all of the two hundred people on this list actually are entitled to any relief i already have that standing i mean they're not asking to have associational standing they already have so sick they have a social standing for s or an overall declaration but i don't think i certainly have never seen a case relief as to as to their membership or individual members of the association that's undeclared that's not declaring the law that's declaring facts and individualized facts at that if any individuals other than the now seven or eight people who have live lawsuits wanted wanted too sued the district they could have sued the district they could have approached is that we really couldn't sit idly by with an organization that we're no longer affiliated with claimed our very own clients as their clients essentially  clear let me call the next