long standing case for i think five years now and what strikes me right now is just some or all practical problem you your clients have represented a lot of different entities some of which are probably not even in business now the funds have been distributed i have no idea how many of them are still viable judges snyder i thought rather carefully went through the practical problems that exist in your getting recovery from the common fun what you said by perfect says to me but let's just say i argue window that you're absolutely right that the times you want covered  right about the difference between a common bond and a common benefit what's the problem here the as i read it the january th two thousand and twenty order by judge snyder awarded attorney fees attorney fees under our common fund there is not joint and several liability of the beneficiaries rather is based upon what they actually got so if you had one hundred percent of the beneficiaries half of them are out of business now you say there's a whole bunch more money you could only recover twenty five percent in your mind against all those who still survive it who received a certain amount of money that's correct those who benefit from this should be paying for that listen reasonable for a subordinate or understudy to bill three thousand plus hours and of course carmen use the word understudy and people in as i think both sides in this briefing view that as some kind of a disk but it strikes here is contingent i don't see any double billing and carmen says the latter eventually happened when i was unable to make oral argument at the crucial mergence emotion telephonic he couldn't participate because of his hearing impairment freeman on a moment's notice stepped in and argued successfully and so far you know the rest of this and given your memory you could probably do it better than i can without looking but that's the thing that i think it may have been out only carmen makes the point because he is ready to step in and successfully argue this motion but the district court judge said i don't believe these have been fabricated in any way the problem is are they justified in the circumstance i think this was what was bothering her and i'm not sure even mr friedman did not play a leading role in determining strategy in moving the case who were lundy did for its clients and mr carmen played that role for the petitioners the the nature of position but that's the one place we're talking about conversations between counsel that went on in house years later where we really can't see behind the curtain to write it this wouldn't be the st time i've noticed two things in my career when litigation goes bad oh yes point fingers and when a little goes well there's a lot of people in line to take credit and maybe even in good faith to remember conversations differently about who's idea who had which idea st but at this point you know we are where we are and it strikes and then the court determines whether a multiplier is appropriate in this case has been part and all multiplied so i think certainly i think all of us are asking why no multiplier in this case is very clear journey to give them an incentive to be involved and benefiting the public your honor i don't think that that's not specifically that that factor the results that were obtained employed right this talks about modifying that mechanism that's a different prospect altogether do we have anything in the record that indicates that california existing system to recruit where there's overpayments or errors or fraud in  but we're way over time so if you go back now to your two to what judge was getting at in terms of modifying that system as opposed to just employing it using it i certainly read this settlement agreement as saying to the state was not going to read to modify that significant and what if the deal were the state gets reimbursed for that off the top and then there's another reduction because as is acknowledged some of these providers aren't in business anymore so that comes off the top but there would still be it seems to me here cut this was an unjustified restriction it's important to remember this wasn't seeking money from the public it was seeking money from health care providers were benefited in terms of the other theory the com