court my name is alan representing objector appellant bethany price this court has paid leave and consistently acknowledged both the important role that objector played in the class action settlement approval process as well as the equitable principle whereby successful objector is able to obtain a fee for his or her services and the services state health and welfare fund case for a wild allow someone in the attorney who are without family was in there to claim any of the benefits of the settlement fund to recover a fee for her services and in fact in that case that attorney's role was limited to simply helping draft a settlement agreement the language from the lower court that equity required does not permit was not allowed but required the fair treatment of anyone who co was the term that this court used to the trans union case to describe the objector who had obtained some of the benefits improved the settlement and in that case unsolicited my client believed that her text message wasn't serious she therefore had the obligation and the d she would have been potentially bored from pursuing her own claim separately that is let you know if she had moved forward in the district court but tiny day clarification of of the settlement class where she's inside or outside of it if she had failed to act in any other court across the country would have looked at some definition and said miss price if you wanted any money from western union from unsolicited text you were obligated to follow your claim that you were the question counsel she was not a member of the class because she didn't receive an unsolicited i counsel was representing a class member we thought she was a class member at the time but when she was not a class member the district court so ruled you're not challenging that ruling understand there's a lack of stand here she's a stranger to this litigation your client we don't have an ongoing appeal the other factor in trans union that distinguishes it from this case is that there was an ongoing appeal by parties with standing class counsel had filed an appeal in that case so there wasn't a total want of jurisdiction here we have a total want of appellate jurisdiction because your client has no standing to appeal if you were challenging the district court's ruling that she is not a class member that would be a different matter but you're not challenging that ruling so she comes to this appeal that's a complete stranger respect your honor i would not agree with that point because i think that when she applied for a fee then she has the standing to appeal she's not a class member i'm not aware and there's a rule says that the rule drawn says that only class members can make an objection rule twenty three is limited however i do not believe that there's any law and none was cited by either class council or western union so even that that would apply in the common fund dr the common fund  shows mistakingly believing that he should mo your yard when in fact it's the night he has no contract with you he may have never met you he may be a complete stranger implicitly motion him mian accept the full benefits of his or her services equitably that person is entitled to be paid there is no contractors no prior existing relationship at all it is just simply equitably someone who confers a benefit that's a substantive contract doctrine that you're referring to here you haven't brought a substantive quasi contractual claim you know making out a procedural claim under rule twenty three that is nonexistent is far as i can see i don't specifically referred the court to the common fund doctrine not about bassoon pausa i think that that buffoon plaza case would not be a political here because that one it was not a common prices of party and if we were looking for a shifting board whereby we would be looking for money from the defendant western union i think that we might be in a substantive and  procedural position that would be different than what we take from here but i do not see where the plaza case will be a political at all that was not a class action there was no common situation where price the objector is not a class member was repeatedly found to district court to not be a class member so it's not a situation where there's unfair or some sort of i'm just surprised at the last minute after or years of good faith advocacy the entire time that this was pending before the district court the settlement it was repeatedly made showing on the record that she wasn't even close to being a class member in the district court so health  therefore no standing that that seems about as clear as anything ever could be and the state of the law in the circuit and frankly every other circuit the court moreover held that even if she were a class member that fiction of course or otherwise were deemed to somehow have standing the reality so how the district is that miss pryse and her counsel added exactly zero value zero to use the district courts will that is a classic abuse of discretion finding and a classic abuse of discretion standard here on appeal it simply inconceivable that there's a path to disturb that i mean this court has held time and again that as it pertains to fees the district court is in the best position to decide who added what value and who deserves what the court made a very detailed finding on those issues in fact it on multiple occasions and said there was a value add and so even if it were theoretically possible to award fees there's no basis to do so if it is i daresay hard to the reality i'd like to also point out is that if if price and her council despite not being a class member in this settlement were somehow allowed to recover fees under these circumstances we know what would happen we know very well what would happen anyone can then object to any settlement anywhere for any reason whatsoever even if they are not a class member and make some sort of argument whether it even has merit or not doesn't really matter i suppose they just assert something and then they can say that while they have somehow added value and when the district court denies those arguments as they surely will they will then have standing to appeal and hijack the settlement for another two or three years which by the way as exactly what happened here we don't want that that is not good and that is directly contrary to the direction that rule twenty three has gone just in the last year  or amendments were made to rule twenty three particularly with an eye toward objectors and trying to come up with measures that would while at the same time allowing a good faith class number with standing to assert their right to make an objection to at the same time not have that completely derailed the process of class action settlements because of the process being exploited by people who are who have other interests in mind so it's it's clear on the law what the outcome should be here and it's also clear what any other outcome would result in and that is a complete disarray of the class action process as we know it there's just simply no basis or reason to do that the court can has multiple paths to deny the request for fees here and any one of them would be enough and i think i've already exceeded my time thank not a member of the class and she lacks stand to make her objection meaning she lacks standing to request attorneys fees and costs on the basis that objection she consented to receive text messages from she's not a member of th settlement ask for any settlement class we provided evidence of that consent fairly early on in the objection process that's not been disputed before the district court it's not before this court frankly it's not reasonably  the discussion that the district court also addressed as sort of an alternative but if i say i think we can echo that as well i don't think that the district court who had observed these parties