dollars that the motion was on time despite having been early in the procedure history of the case and the fact that there was no local rule or scheduling order setting a deadline under which the motion could have been deemed un of discretion and because of this if this court finds that the district courts nial of the motion to certify on timeliness grounds was also an abuse of discretion then and we believe that it was then district of florida removed a corresponding ninety day filing requirement from its local rules in two thousand and four and it is also for this reason why the middle district of florida also recently moved the ninety days  here there were no local rules replying there were no local rules under which the motion a certified could have been given time under and there was no order or scheduling order in place and the scheduling order and the district court failed to enter one and despite the foregoing the district court completely ignored the procedure or history of the case not only the scheduling order issue but also the fact that this case is governed by the heightened securities litigation reform act which imposed other procedural hurdles that increased were linked in the amount of time that it would have taken for pla and on top of that the district court ignored the fact that there was no pre concert efficient discovery taken whatsoever there was no you and we talk about them about the discovery issue  limited discovery is allowed that's correct on and throughout the entire proceeding we were operating under that very harsh it wasn't until the district court ordered us to move for is because this case has been stay for fourteen months of the operative eighteen months and the opening was wrong or anything i don't believe that we made that argument in ambiguously all this coverage and other proceedings shall be state during the pendency of any motion to dismiss unless the court finds a part of the motion of any party that particular discovery is necessary to preserve evidence or prevent undue credit to that party i take it in this case there was no frightened by the district court that particular ifas every was necessary either to preserve quite some courts hold that other proceedings means literally other all other proceedings and others do not in this case the magistrate found that other proceedings only means other proceedings with respect to discovery have we discretion to determine that the plaintiff's motion for a class certification was not timely filed here we had an eighteen month delay between the filing of the complaint me the only issue is the court's alternative holding that motion the certification was too late it was a trial or do you disagree with that based on it's almost certainly true that the trial court if not you would have sat it's premature to address the motion that this boy because there's no discovery and you may not be able to answer but from the fore not necessarily i mean right right in their complaint they make their clients claims and then you know the documents that they use in their nd motion or we need a motion for class certification they had all of your answer to what they had lax in the initial complaint that i know but keep in mind that they had all the documents that they needed to filed the motion a class certification back in february then we get to march where they're wrangling it out with other plaintiff's attorneys and there's a joint motion to appoint lead plaintiffs jacob thomas frenzel and wang you see which was granted by the court on april th two thousand and eighteen so right the a they're determining who's going to be the lead plaintiffs and who's going to be plain counsel for this class certification and that's all the way back on april th two thousand and eighteen and as the court correctly noted judge the center is a water only stayed discovered so at the end of the day they could filed their motion for class certification and then they determine that there is a lead you now they're going to be the law firm representing the lead plaintiffs in the case and if you look at all the attachments to their renewed motion for class  tell me whether you was standard or an expedited schedule or whether you had good reason for a more protracted schedule i'm directing you to respond january and you say why do you need a protracted schedule not a standard schedule not an expedited schedule but  by march the th two thousand and if that was the case then the two of you proposed that a classroom motion be filed no later than kind of schedule but they never did that although he had asked you what your views were you agree and he never responded is that a fair statement of what happened well i think what would in their motion for class certification they never said judge we need more time because there's been a stacked judge you've never entered a discovery order with the deadlines   i'm really having a hard time understanding why the trial court has to be informed of the procedure of the case well put it some point the plaintiff's attorneys if they felt that so if they felt that they didn't have what they needed to file the motion for class certification they should have alerted the court that they now think it's my my my my my issue  i understand it if the parties had some joining dream and that was never filed but here there was a state in order to stay in place that was entered so it was a no to the district court judge that there was a stand please it wasn't like some secret probation that you guys came you know decided upon and you can tell the district court right but i was just to stay with respect to the discovery and  you know to put the plaintiff could have alerted the court to their need for discovery or alerted the court to the prior joint agreement but they never alerted the court at all that right that is correct so now was that was stricken applied to the discovery but i would think the early practicable time on that these cases facts would be no later than when judge granted the joint motion to appoint the lead plaintiff jacob  before i think under the case specific backs of this case that would have been the early practicable time and one issue that i want to touch on that we haven't addressed is is at the end of the  plaintiffs are going to be compensated in all the ether that they're seeking in this civil class action has been seized by the government reacts to is that part of the record evidence in this case judge they filed the notice of related cases in the docket and i don't have the documentary in front of me but i can get it and i think the court can take judicial notice of that and at the end of the day all of that ether everything we're fighting about everything with here about today is property of the government judge show field in the southern district in new york is about to and there are a final order of forfeiture and begin the rim mission process but at the end of the day we think judge scalia was well within his discretion given the particular practice especially this april th two thousand and eighteen date where judge king granted the joint motion to appoint the lead that's built into the deal sorry it has nothing to do that is a required notice and lead plaintiff appointment procedure that is completely separate and apart from rule twenty three so that has and i just like to go back to what judge marcus not your earlier about the rule twenty three putting the onus on the judge in this case we didn't there was nothing more we could have circulation of the class it would have been too late at that point right yes  link i just like to stress that we followed all the rules we did everything we could i don't know what we could have done differently thank you very much to both of you and mr craig it was