my first feeling is that when i've read both cases we don't need to consider whether the the acar talk about the interstate commerce commission termination act is rectal active in this case because in this case we're asking for injunctive relief only it's only prospector we're not asking for damages for what happened before january first one thousand nine hundred six as a matter of fact if you read the pretrial order stipulation there are is that the defendants were were doing the bring the action to speak in jump give relief unless and until congress has conferred standing your clients to seek some form of relief whether it be damages or actions which used to be brought as i understand it by either the commission itself or perhaps to get moved to the department of transportation i'm not sure but used to be brought only by the government so why isn't the situation covered by th cases they were working for this company without this protection of the without these laws in place after the act was passed they were working under a contract which had already been signed isn't that the we call it a lease or a contract that was entered into by any of your clients after the act went into effect so we did it under the under whatever the terms of the agreement are every time they pick up a load and deliver it somewhere that's manner agreement or contract or whatever we're going to college to answer that question yes yes but you can if you look at the terms they're not the ones that are required the ones that were required before the act was passed and the ones that will require after the act was passed are the same and they're not units they're not in passed they can just continue to fix up prices to get price this fresh after the act is passed because they're kind of grandfathered in i mean that's basically what we're not talking about conduct we're talking about standing who has the right to complain about it and before one thousand nine hundred six or whatever the operative date is it was either the interstate commerce commission or the department of transportation now it's private individuals and it be creates a new regulations which are also for the public safety of my clients and member of the public and he's a person as described by the act he's not maybe not a person injured but that doesn't say you have to be a person of or just as a person can bring an action for an injunction i just followed the statu quickly i want to know you made it sound like you grew short straw unfortunately my likers a lawyer was thirty years a transportation lawyer so i figure by virtue of the fact that i probably know more arcane nonsense about transportation than one could ever want to know in one's life ok i want to i want to stress a couple of things first to respond to mr mr glick's comment at the end that you don't have to be injured and statutes of my dispenses with the concept of injury the t commerce termination act in and in fact two of them the case involving real delivery services and that being involving r w a trucking in both cases those contracts were over they after after but none of the contracts were in force at the time this lawsuit was filed originally these were passed contract contractors were ended in so none of these truckers owner operators was and so then they bring up an action for damages in an action for injunctive relief yes and the damages drops out the damages drops out and therefore we are saying that throws them all out they don't have standing to responsibility to be first in line if the if these people were damaged public you dan and the exact language that was contained in the statute wasn't expansive for the leases those are the ones that are here   at least the way the case is articulated is now a shift of the plaintiff from the i c c to the owner operators directly and my question is is there also a continuation of the i type role but now shifted into the department of transportation yes ok so an owner operator could i'm addressing the gap problem the arctic are raised which is to say that if you take hiatus and you say well gee if your contract was entered into before when you weren't i when i was the ice to see only the people who come after now can take advantage of it because that the that the department transportation today i see c p a gave him continuing concurrent jurisdiction the federal statutes continue to give the attorney general the right to bring these actions they continue to make the the problem castration federal highway administr they have the legal power to do it they have the personnel to do it the same people by and large are still there but remember that the house the house said among other things that we don't want you wasting your budget on this we want to solve this in the federal courts so as a practical matter these about the plaintiffs took it up they were arguing that the matter should be have exclusive jurisdiction within the d o t they were still fighting over whether a new right was created at that point the deity acknowledged that they had the right but declined to assume exclusive jurisdiction in the desk in the first new prime case so you know i mean the power is there and what they would do specifically in one of these cases i don't know in the real world where operators today have a huge amount of leverage there's there's far more trucking companies that need them than their owner operators to provide the services that are needed i would say that the things that didn't exist for the arguments about not just new plaintiffs and ind these are new plaintiffs with new motors many of which are monetary motivated before in the practice of the i c c we didn't deal with things like attorneys say we didn't deal with damages related to disgorge when normally what would happen would be the enforcement proceeding would order if they found in abuse they don't have the abuse correctly and the carry would correct the abuse if there was restitution on an escrow in our case we have none of that ours is just it's a lit no injury there was no damage or go in our judgment there's no standing in the plaintiff's judge you know that if the pretrial conference order stipulated that there was no harm to any of the plaintiffs that brought these actions been there all the time that we've been trying this case the fortunately state court and i will have all these problems and i and i brought it up not just in that motion but over and over again you can see in the excerpt when we would appear we discussed it with the court she said no i have jurisdiction here so the by congress is what he was telling you that they should be taking these cases that the owner operator should be the ones bringing these cases because there's limited resources that the government has and the and eyes a private attorney can't be bringing these