honor good morning my name is patrick and brown and i'm representing myself on this appeal in this appeal we are what is in front of the court is the question of whether or not the district court judge denial of the attorneys fees sunshiny on two basic proposition one that because the number amount for the settlement didn't go up that i didn't provide  any benefit to the class and to that because there were other objectors that the arguments that i made were not in any way novel and therefore again i was not entitle to recover the attorney's fees that were incurred dollars there are several changes to the settlement not least of which was the about the ability to actually determine how much the fund was actually worth that accrued from my and my my attorney my my attorney efforts in first objecting at the district court level and then bring the successful appeal up tonight circuit to have the original settlement agreement overturned and then and so when when the judge is making into terminations of whether he should be entitled to attorney's fees or service award he should be considering the changes that did it did whether there was a benefit to the changes that were made besides for example being able to determine exactly how much the settlement was actually worth and then there was also procedural changes that have a great deal benefit as is the knowledge by the suddenly parties had a great deal benefit to the class members such as not having to go first to see whether or not the retailer would accept the expired groupon before being able to go in and make a claim against the summit funds and then with respect to the assertion that my arguments were made on my behalf by my attorneys both on the district court level and on the appeals level but they were not unique simply because matter the wording in the district court orders it isn't saying that it's not unique because i didn't make i wasn't the first person make an argument or anything like that he simply said that because other people objected it was not unique in that i mean to allow for that simply means a soon as there's two of objectors nobody ever is able to get their attorney's fees and that's from my understanding contrary to what the clay case law is in this district so what i would be asking would be for the judges on remand to be looking out what what benefits i provided whether what arguments i made that were unique versus the other objectors and taking that into consideration in determining what the appropriate we're kind of like lead police the court i'm just a daily for the plaintiffs apple leaves here there are several reasons why the district court discretionary decision not to word the objector any attorney's fees should be upheld first and most prominently ejector did not increase the settlement fund by one penny it started out as an eight point five million dollar fund in two thousand and twelve it remained an eight point five million dollars in two thousand and fifteen council yes you just ruled with the question so when we ha settlement it's true that the second settlement fund which was what troubled the panel in the original journey of groupon up here it's true that the panel asked the district court judge the brought to make the bluetooth findings with regard to that second settlement because it wanted to be able to put a value upon the entire overall settlement and compare that to the attorneys fees that were coming out of the overall fund when this case went back down to this district court by that time three years had passed the parties both sides decided to excise the second settlement fund out of the overall settlement they decided to streamline the process instead of making class members go back to a merchant with a with a with a voucher they could actually get credit deposited immediately into their group on fine but here's the thing judge subprocess still did those blue tooth findings and i would add nobody has filed an appeal from that part of his order nobody has said that he did not make the bluetooth findings that he was supposed to make and you'll find those blue tooth findings you'll find him discussing blue tooth in his final approval order of the two thousand and fifteen settlement one third like seven days later the altered some amount was put into effect i mean it was really quick well i think you're talking you're referring back to the initial and i apologize for the approval and said i can't give final approval here because of the cypre purposes provision the seventy five thousand dollars to these two organizations that is correct that was removed from the final settlement it came back in front of him as you said very quickly but i just want to interject right there i understand objective position that she was the first in time for all of these objections but specifically asked that cypre provision be removed it had nothing to do with her she was one of that mention cypre but it was two other objectors freedom and ms jean shepherd that specifically pointed out to the district court this court's dennis decision from the summer of two thousand and twelve that goes into the the intricacies of cypre and whether or not they can be linked to the benefit that provision came out of the initial settlement but not because of any unique efforts by objector brown or her counsel if it came about because of those two specific objectors that i just mentioned as well as the ten or eleven others that this court will find in supplement the record listed seventy nine through eighty one here's the big here's the eight hundred pound girl in the corner of the room objector brown wants to take credit for this pan this court's prior groupon decision sending back down to judge sobre to make the bluetooth findings and for the parties then to have removed the second settlement provision the second settlement find out of the overall settlement and she says that she presented the are going to ultimately lead to this court order vacating the settlement and that blue tooth concerns were at the heart of this court's reversal of vacated semite but here's the thing we are not going to find support for that position that she was the driving force behind that you're not going to find it in this court's memorandum disposition the first time around the court the panel in judge ruled you run the panel specifically refused to reach the merits of the objectors objections and recall there were two objectors up there it was not just ms brown and her attorneys there was a second objector named sean hole and his attorney and his attorney at the hearing was ted frank and on replying now because objector brown has said she proffered an extensive argument on bluetooth an brief a pages twenty to twenty one and if you will look at his reply brief the pages three to five you will see extensive argument about blue tooth and blue tooth findings being needed needing to be made that believe at the time they thought there was enough in their immune was an eight point five million dollars settlement fine it was just how it was that eight point five million going to be spent was it going to be spent on somebody going to the merchant first and being refused and coming back makes it as you know and makes it papers regarding the most recent final settlement we understand that week that both sides created an improved settlement it was streamlined it made it easier for the class members the money didn't change but it streamlined so yes in hindsight boy i guess we wish we had done it the that never going to distribute the class we're going to be able to take from the front on a pro rata basis so at one point in this in this journey we believe we're going to be able to give one hundred thirty percent back to everybody in other words for every dollar they have spent on a group on vote sure they are actually going to get a dollar thirty because of the notice process here and the sheer number that the tens of millions of people that received notice and the four or five million that visited the website we had we had nearly one hundred thirty five thousand claims against the fund that hundred thirty percent per class member recovery actually was reduced to approximately eighty percent so we were still able to give the entire class eighty percent eighty cents on the dollar of their recovery nothing left over so now i just want to back up two minutes the reversionary what they are saying was revers because a feature of the initial second segment fun was that group on could apply to the fund for a refund but only a refund for one purpose and they could apply to the fund for a refund if they themselves had given cash to a class member we did with that we decided to make it very easy to clear the class members could either apply to the claim through the claims process for their money or they could go directly to group on and group would do that a group could also then recoup w briefing that spurred this court to do it it didn't riginal memoranda disposition and i also don't like the panel to keep in mind that we are dealing here with the abuse of discretion standard judge deborah in the record i made two specific findings he said objector brown did not increase the fund by anything and under this court's this kaino vs microsoft decision that doesn't entitle her to fees she also did not provide any unique benefit that helped the class she did not do one thing any more any more than any other objector had done she certainly didn't do it with the removal of the side position provision and she certainly didn't do it when it came to somehow getting the district court to do something back down below objector sean hall was with her up at the second circuit and this court has case law that says when you've got duplicative arguments and these weren't even duplicated i mean mr hall is our argument is the one that carried the day so to the extent that maybe she cited bluetooth once or twice in her appellate papers which she did recognized and his findings must be deferred to unless they are clearly erroneous and that means that the court has to believe that with that he that it is clear mistake that he made and we submit that he did not people determination was made by the district court that she didn't make the needed arguments is there was a much longer denial than what was provided with respect to mine but again it's the same fundamental thing where there is evidence on the record that i did make some at least some unique arguments and i was the first substantive object object there on friday beaches both at the district court level and then on appeal i was my appeal preferred was put in the district court judge doesn't do it took no time to look at what was put into the briefs to make a determination on what arguments were made by me which are what be the rule because then all you have to do is get one other person to have jacked and then nobody is entitle to peace and it really would chill the object it would chill people taking time to hire an attorney and have that and they didn't apply to the court for fees or what they do they do not know so nobody else is asking for the deeds right so and i think that one of the reasons that other people aren't asking for fees is because they were either pro although there are portions and we do talk about bluetooth and although someone calls attorney did as well the question right now in front of you is not necessarily what was the relative merits that would be for the district court to determine the question in front of you is can the district court just say there is another objector so you don't get any money you paid the filing fees for the appeal i did well i'm out money quite a bit of money i flew out here from minnesota to be here because besides fact that i would like to be able to pay my attorneys i think it's an important issue in the general sense for object just to be able to is provided to the court or to the class even if it isn't from a monetary nature now it's our position that you can't even fully determine how much the  second the first the first settlement that was appealed so the one without the cypre you can actually adequately determine what that the value of that was to the class because the bluetooth factors were that there was no findings on that and there are several things about that second settlement fund in the second in that settlement that were potentially problematic including the fact that groupon could go to the class to go to that second settlement fine and ask for cash that they paid out and it wasn't just limited to during the period class period it was they could also apply to get money that they paid to somebody if they were a class member for group times they bought afterwards which means it wasn't actually a benefit for the class and so there was at least the potential that some of that money could have been a lot of that money would have ended up back in group ons pockets without it actually providing any benefit for the class for the class period and so to say that it's worth a point five million dollars on is it's a stretch but the evidence isn't there to support that but even if it was the that people don't have to go to the merchant and find out that the merchants are not there and sign an affidavit saying the merchant not going to accept this or the merchant has closed before they can even approach groupon to get the  value from groupon and from the settlement that provides a lot of value to the class both on the number of people that are actually going to go through the entire process and be able to take money from that and just like on a regular basis whether the just as a person that if you're if you're much more likely to go and do one form then fill out a form go to a business fill out the fill out a second form to say that you didn't do it or that they think that you failed so that you can finally get the money so for the class that the procedural changes that have been made were made on after was reminded that provided a great deal of benefit to believe we submitted it as a on a percentage basis and we also asked for a priest we asked for a percentage of the overall attorney's fees based on the argument that we provided value of  the class and that and then a service fee of seventy five hundred dollars was what we were just a service fee for me individually of seventy five hundred dollars was what the request was up at the lower part level so what we're asking right now essentially is for or what i'm asking for right now is remand to the district court to make the appropriate findings on what the relative balances of of the arguments that i made and actual findings with respect to  the value of the original settlement so that you can say how much value was provided to the class based on the work that i did or that my attorneys did this way to going back and that the settlement you that i mean i would potentially have to hire an attorney i'd have to do it myself at this point it's been a long time the people that i originally worked was as good as if and been dispersed it's my understanding that yes i probably have district court to make findings now that there could be still another appeal back to us or afterwards my question is just whether you and the  to give the parties a chance to maybe if they wanted too i personally would be open to mediation so that we're not here again in three years when i maybe we wouldn't be but it seems that in general seems like sometimes having a third party involved helping you both see maybe where the weakest is are in your arguments could be helpful