all the case here is where the appeal here rather is really about a settlement that was that was created or that was entered into at a time when the plaintiffs in the case into which we moved to intervene were sort of limping into a very weak posture having lost class certification having lost a motion for summary judgment and and really having bargained away or having lost any sort of leverage that they might possibly have had to have gotten a decent  and i think when i think another judge in another district ruled the same thing that well that is that is true at least that was represented in their paper that was the case so we have and that that's true our  claims are actually not are our class claims are not really focused on we travel time claims we actually have claims that arise from an entirely different nexus of facts there are some overlapping claims one of our main claims that we actually have the there are clients have the right to go forward with on a class and representative basis is for this medium but some of your claims are to be arbitrary the majority of our claims have to be an arbitration but as the court knows arbitration is simply another for for adjudicating the merits of the claim what's important is on what basis they can go forward it can be expensive it certainly can be mainly for the defendant but and because there are rules as to the extent to which plaintiffs act have to bear the burden of arbitration costs especially in and we do in our actions and class actions those costs would be borne almost exclusively by liberty but in fact these these claims we have the right to go forward with an aggregate basis they did not and at that particular moment in a position of weakness except disarmament which was really by any measure not in the best interest of the class and rife with with collusion as well as tell me about that they represent and i that the settlement was based upon a proposal made by an independent well experienced mediat it was blessed by mediator that's right your honor and i don't think it was exactly what the mediator proposed it was based upon what he proposed what evidence is that he was involved including well your honor my answer to that would be would be several if you have face in the meantime you are worried about a conclusion i mean that doesn't but that's a perfectly thing to be worried about but if it's represented to you look we have come to this because of the posture of the case because of the amount involved because we are offering full restitution well it's not full restitution to each member of the class but average member of the class and this is based upon a mediator's proposal would seem to me that a district judge can say you know i'm satisfied that isn't collusive even though it's a million dollars going to the pendulum of well your honor in this circuit the bluetooth case really speaks to these sorts of these sorts of cases where you have bluetooth actually dealt with the case where you have a pre certified cation settlement this is sort of an even more extreme example because this is a post certification denial settlement but would bluetooth said was that if you have a settlement being entered into pre certified cation the court is supposed to look at a number of factors one of the eight being whether or not there was an  really don't help you well we don't really know because the district court didn't make any findings on them and in fact one of those factors in the value of the settlement and in this case not only didn't the district court make any findings with respect to the value of the injunctive relief or what value the class but as we pointed out and as we pointed out to the district court the value that the class god what the class actually got out of the settlement which there was quite a bit a case wanted says that that's an important factor was completely opposite the council i've got a couple of which are given which i think was a one in a quarter million or something that was one point one two five million your honor ok and then out of that compare with the expected amount that's going to go to class members under in this case the attorneys are getting i believe three times or almost three times as much money as the class is getting in relief and in fact as we pointed out in our papers and we point out to the district court in this particular case  facts where you have the lowest paid workers transience workers two hundred ten thousand of them who generally work for a very short period of time there was a very low expected participation rate and even though it's hidden from th that very low participation rate actually came to fruition seven percent of the class participated in this egregiously low settlement which was to entirely expected which is why there was a complete reversion not only of the class relief but of the attorneys they've already got to keep everything to other related question the second one is what's the relationship between the amount that class members could get if they made a claim and the amount given to the class representatives their incentive terms of the multiple i believe we pointed out it was five hundred times i'm sorry it was it was between five hundred times and two hundred times i believe what the class members so in other words here jeffrey allen was faced with the possibility of either participating in a twenty five dollar raid or getting five thousand dollars after his claims were completely eviscerated and he was left with an individual claim if he decided to bless the settlement and go forward with it after they had lost basically every possible bit of leverage that they could have had so your honor knowing full well the radcliffe decision which your honor authored in that case one of the main points that i believe the court made was when you have that that large disparity there is certainly a it should be a red flag to the court to take a hard look at what's really going on certainly in this case in the mosaic of facts that we've pointed out where you have that great a disparity between what  participating class member would get and what his service fee award would be where you have such a low participation rate where you have a full reversion where you have a settlement entered into after certification has been basis not only for finding that the class rep was inadequate but finding that class counsel was inadequate under twenty three and four then i don't know the ultimate implication of it but that leaves the basis for searching inquiry by the district court absolutely early on the most of the some see if i understand this river reversion point you made the attorney's fees were based on one fourth of a four million dollar that if you take out of that fund you subtract the one point two five million for attorney's fees and you subtract the amount of claims actually made which you estimate are in the amount of three or four hundred thousand or something at the very much ok that what happens to the rest of that four point five million all to labor ready ok so then what the amount of the settlement that's actually being made it's three they're getting an eight year lease from two hundred thousand employees for about one point six million dollars actually paid out and th vast majority of that being in attorney five the one point one two five and attorney's fees you now and going to the claims administration process the small amount going to the state for pagg and the services and the service award the rest of that would equal about three point something three point three million dollars and of that amount most of it other than the three hundred seventy four or last would be going back to labor day if i if i've answered the question that was posed ready to change the way of doing business that the court make of finding with the use of that not at all your honor it was pointed out and there was some discussion about the injunctive relief and i believe said at one point during one of the hearings as a rhetorical question the court the district court said it believed that some of it was valuable and that was i believe what liberty pointed out and said aha there's been a finding there was no finding whatsoever regarding what that was actually worth or in fact how would you tell you that ad would you value the no longer using the cash machine or whatever and reverting to the man now in adopting getting rid of those machines and actually providing from the chronic payment how do you value th well if it was our case we'd probably have an expert and submit an expert declaration explaining what that was worth and kind wasn't how how would the expert approach that issue i mean it and i mean i realize this may be i the whole purpose is the five thousand dollars for four years as a gauge does seem to me to be in the ballpark and i don't even know what the value of his claims opposed to the fast numbers claim it only gets in the record secondly the role of the incentive provided to painless counsel to get people to change questionable business practices is worth something i mean i i mean if this really goes to the three all of this goes to whether the name class rep got too much and i understand the posh or the case i hear you ok but but but but a million two hundred fifty thousand dollars for for a change in question will business practice seems to me to be a one adequate if and if you and if and if they can track down who these transit workers are and actually how you can either write well i guess my response to that would be a couple of things one is that what we're talking about here you know the real twenty eight o two there would be business going to reimbursement claims all of those are claims there were even pleaded but they but our clients actually have i mean this goes to the heart of our sort of conflict of interest argument but in fact there was at the end some injunctive relief tacked on for that which was that their employees would be trained to follow the law which as we pointed out in our papers is not in fact injunctive relief at all even if you take a step take apart the fact that there's no that there's been no authority given to oversee the injunction or anything rt really made no findings whatsoever and one can assume it might be worth something but under this circuit's precedent under bluetooth and under and under radcliffe where you have conflicts of interest like there are here quite clear ones and i'm not amount like that and that was the vet that was in fact what he was left with at the time when he was faced with the with the choice of four years well i don't know how we were taking away his i think he sat for a post certification deposition that appears to have been  sort of added on to reasons that we don't know but there was he did not sit for a deposition at the normal time which would be prior to a class of he did not the record doesn't show the record blow doesn't show that he really did much of anything  so you know i don't know but you know you but your point about the service award of five thousand dollars you have a service award of five thousand dollars in the abstract there's nothing wrong with it all what we're saying is here especially when viewed in these facts it's inappropriate and especially under the circuit's precedent it definitely makes it raises a red flag that the district courts really should have honed in on and it wasn't entirely the district courts to help because a lot of the most important facts here were kept from the district court like the fact court fault for not of asking the right questions perhaps the district court has better questions and we did try and bring these things up and i understand that there are a lot of different factors at work here under bluetooth under radcliff under an can out of circumstances like doing when you have this kind of conflict of interest and these kind of badges of collusion where the conflict of interest is that you have class members who have different interests sharply different interests and incentives than the class rap and the class reps attorneys which is that some of the class members he unlike our clients the objectors have the ability to move forward on fully aggregate claims they have class action claims for mill break rest break and and excuse me business expense reimbursement claims whether or not they've actually been certified is a non issue the fact is they have the right to move forward with aggregate claims and as any class action lawyers knows that is one of the main origin points of any kind of leverage to have a decent settlement is the fact that you have the right or the potential impose aggregate liability on the defendant for a massive class here so our clients have those claims as to cause this massive in number but not in practicality well as upon your own presentation well we've said nothing about the about the question i think that there can be no doubt and it certainly wouldn't be less it would be difficult to find any approved settlement where you have fewer people participating than this one i realize that i'm running short on time and if your honour's have any more questions i were identified in the in the release as it's in the court's final approval order they were not identified in the notice to the class but they were certainly made clear when it came time to have them wiped out by the court on and they were essentially shoehorned into but it does show the problem of parachute of coming in after the after the settlements been reached and trying to another your own nest we were involved in this case four years prior to the the settlement having been reached so we did not this was not a case where we filed it and how did you become involved in the case how did my firm become and yes was it by reading that you filed for class actions in state court is that right we did we filed and did you come up with that idea or had the first case been filed first and did you review the complaint and then come file your actions in state court i can't speak to the origin of that i don't know if it might be important to my name in terms of what your work was and whose brainchild does was it might be did did you simply copy in the state court class action what already been alleged in the federal court action our claims are distinct from theirs so i stand and i it's not my question if you're asking whether this is an original idea to labor ready i don't think it was for them either there was a fourth circuit case adkins against labor ready in two thousand and two said the idea that the labor ready we didn't come up with that ourselves but we did we were contacted by clients and sought different claims than the ones that are at issue here and i also don't believe it was in the record or brought up in the district court thank you  monetary release huge on these folks to get rich from it no but that's based on the value of the claims that were initially they have one extra claim which is a millbrae claim i'll talk about that later but let's talk about what were the claims that issue we had a waiting time claim a travel time claim and expenses in traveling back and forth now the the department of labor has already ruled and this is going to sit there and wait and see if a job came up and then got your job and they were claiming that time late in the office and the time traveling back and forth should be compensable the department of labor handbook says specifically temporary labor department of labor is clear as can be those claims don't have monetary value to them now the c d n claims will talk about that for a second because they had the c t m claims and so do the plaintiffs on the side of the c d s were put in place by labor ready because a lot of our workers don't have whenever they're gone we took them out and let me say this we did it with not like we made money on the reason we put them in is because our workers didn't have relationships with financial institutions and couldn't get these cat checks cashed now if you look at the ruling from the santa clara court spirit court santa clara they found in the same series the same labor code sections two thousand to twelve that the cash spent machines were in fact legal a benefit to the employees and should remain on and why did they find they were legal why did they find they were beneficially employees over a thousand employees stepped up and said these machines are beneficial to us and they should be taken out because it can be a financial hardship for us same thing happened here the court there said not only is it not illegal that the machines need to be kept on and we agreed to stipulate judgment that they would be kept on and charged the same fee then we get the second that comes from the allen folks so we take the the c d s out and the also important is in the record is there was once there was a bill that the senate here in california tried to outlaw the feedin machines and you'll see in the record there is a letter from governor schwarzenegger saying this is directed directly at labor ready and i don't find it to be valid and we're not going to be telling the law so where quite frankly i mean i'm from stupid i'm not very mad well i mean but but what do these picard's do in the old days the labor the employees get paid that same day would have to after a full day of work would have to travel from the job site to labor ready to get a check take that check go back to a bank in cash well that takes hour to hour three hours it depends on the employee where all these locations are whether they have now because of these plaintiffs they have a pay card in their pocket they finish work on their way home once the once the supervisor the job site says the labor the yep work was done here is the hours that card is loaded up with cash in the can be used like a credit card anywhere else that's a substantial benefit to these employees it could save anywhere from one to three hours a day in collecting their pay how do you value it hard to say and i think when you say it's hard to say are you suggesting that there couldn't be an expert witness who could put a value on well i don't know how you could on a class wide basis because it would depend on such a variety of factors to come up with a dollar figure for that you know would depend on how long to take the employee to get from the labor ready branch to a place where you had to cash a check in the first place so how much time savings is there going to be i mean certainly convenience for the employees clearly there's a huge convenience for the employees but i just i you know in today's day and age an expert to about anything whether the opinions are valid or not is another issue but i just don't know how you would go about dissecting that on my class wide basis for two hundred thousand people what is really the dollar value i think it's nearly impossible in my opinion but i could be wrong the second thing that we did was which is very very important is we now have we now dispatch differently we've gone to electronic dispatch which means instead of coming in to the branches and waiting around for two or three hours waiting for a job people can sign up with us and we'll text them jobs and the system is so sophisticated that it knows where the employee is and knows where the job is so little sign please to jobs that are very close to them and the employee has the right to say no i don't want that job will reject it but in the morning instead of getting up at five am or four am and get into labor at the office they can sit there they can get it on their phone to me there's a job here do you like it here's the pay rate here's the type of work you want to accept or not again huge savings for the employees you're not getting up at five in the morning go into labor at the office you're getting a text on your phone how do you value that again there's a huge time savings you don't have to take public transit or drive so there's some transportation costs that are saved but how could you ever put a value on that i don't know i just i don't know but the that is a significant sea change in our practices which cost us a significant amount of money to put that in place and it certainly costs us money to have to pay cards in place which we total price tag was going to be i'm not asking you what the i'm just saying i don't i suspect we do i have never seen any numbers like that but it was you know it wasn't something you could turn on like that as obviously a program had to be written developers had to be hired the whole process had to be gone through but is that a benefit to the employees it's a huge benefit to the employees now they also say well gee you know we did kind of pull on that point if i could of course you know i don't  adequate here does he was there are searching inquiry about the factors that go into this settlement that sufficient to satisfy blue to well i think you know we disclosed to him what we're going to do and he looked at it and there was a discussion out of it i or argument and i think for judge preggers then he saw all of these factors was weighing that against the minimal claims that these folks have  and the value of those claims and said i can't speak for him but from what i gathered from their argument he was satisfied that the injunctive relief by itself would be enough to carry the settlement but the problem on that for me at least as one is there was no value put on the inductively and you've argued pretty much like well you don't know how a value could be set for it and  mind is it really impossible to put a value on the injunctive relief well i think at the time that we were there before the judge we certainly didn't know what the  internal costs were going to be and that would be a factor in what was the total value of that settlement and i think what judge what's relationship between the cost to the employer and the benefit  when you value of i spoke to cost you one hundred dollars to do it but it was a million dollars when it's a benefit to the employees i mean you describe the benefits they don't have to come in they don't have get called on the farm well some expert comes in and says well that's worth a million dollars and you did that by just putting a little card or something and it didn't work in a big deal fact right right right and i think that's your question your honor i think both of them have value and i think both of them have to be considered in the settlement because we agreed to do these things as part of the settlement so settlement and knowing how much it's usually not to the individual employees get ten dollars or twenty dollars thirty the real value of these class action suits if it causes a chang with you completely and you know the plaintiffs the objectors argument was well gee you know these are required by law but we weren't required by law to give pay cards we could require the employees to come back and get paychecks that policy already been held have been eliminated because that time was not compensable so expenses incurred there would not be compensable the second one was meal breaks and you bring up a good point and this is information that we gave to judge preggers and they have two folks who claim to have meal claims mrs well they add the jobs at the job site the customer job site which is the next point i'm going to make which is how in the world could you ever certify a class when we're sending workers out to a thousand different job sites in the state of california on any particular day for a thousand different customers who are working different hours on different crews in different industries that would be impossible to certify but missed the don't know what it made it in her deposition i took every single meal break and what they did to try to why would you meal break every day that's how they tried to save it and i claim an arbitration claim as an individual arbitration the second case that the second individual they have that meal claims supposedly was mr alvarez and when i questioned him a deposition in this again we discuss the judge pressures and he said to me well i was working for labor ready at a manufacturing plant and they would have a bell that would go off for lunch and all the workers would go to lunch at the same time he goes but i wouldn't go i keep sweeping because i want to get a permanent job i want to show the employer that i was a hard worker well under the under the radar case now we have to provide meal breaks and let them please no they're entitled to take them if they choose to continue working through their meal breaks that's not a violation either so despite the fact they claim to have these we these are different claims now these meal and rest breaks they don't actually have them based on the testimony of their own clients and what did we do in response so that we're auditing we're making sure that folks take their lunch breaks when they come back and we have this in place before when they come back at the end of the day they had to check a box and they got their lunch breaks and alvarez said one day one day i told the labor ready folks that i took my lunch break five minutes late and i said what happened and they said the very next day labor ready went to the customer and said hey he's claiming he got his lunch break late we have to make sure that we're doing this correctly and went over with the customer the requirements under california law and so while they claim they have the separate claims they're not going to they're not supported by the facts number one number two we gave injunctive relief on the meal and rest periods we have given all the employees little cards which explain what their meal breaks and resprayed rights are because all you're doing is saying well well no we  are obeying the law but we're training our employees to be able to help us audit our customers which is an added benefit because of something out of whack we want to go fix it nothing says we have to train our employees i mean give people cars this was above and beyond and the other things were well i would agree with that but i don't think the law would require us to do what we did and we certainly have to comply with the law and certainly training our customers and doing the audits that we have agreed to do in the injunctive relief eliminates whatever potential meal claims they approved if we reverse my take it if it is approved they are free to opt out out and pursue their individual claims which probably probably aren't worth pursuing i mean absolutely absolutely if the class is claims individual and some in class an arbitration right well they don't nothing's been certified there's no class cases all they have the right to make that motion but there is nothing certified of this point but the problem is this we're now so far out of it we shut off the c d m a scenes in two thousand and ten we started this new practice the only people that they could reach would be people who are way back when and their statute of limitations and so you're going to get a group of people who've who are now where you've just touched on something which worries me no class has ever been certified that's correct so why haven't hasn't limitations run as to all potential class members who did not who did not had not maybe i'm wrong i thought that there's tolling when the only california there is no there would be in my opinion as i understand how far there is no tolling at this point until there that's right that's right so i think you're right i think  what happened openly happens is we're going to be left with a whole bunch of statute limitations issues we're not going to be able to find the most of these folks to this is a fairly transient workforce and we're going to be stuck in a situation where if these folks who have made claims may never i'm happy to take it the one other thing i think is very important and something they've put in their brief this is the most valuable claim out there was a paga claim based on the cd ems because paga has a pretty stiff penalties under that statute you get damages of a hundred bucks for the first violation and two hundred bucks for every subsequent violation and we're dealing with a lot of people there pog is a is a penalty so there's a one year statute limitation they don't have any targe claims based on the c d s the only one who has that is mr out and that's really partly why the settlement is what the settlement was that there was any value any money put on it was because of those claims they don't have them because the first filing on a pago was november two thousand and eleven i don't know some some money goes to state that's correct and then the settlement some money does go to the state has it work one hundred and one hundred and then two hundred for the first violation two hundred for the second violation and seventy five percent of the recovery is supposed to go to the state and twenty five to the aggrieved employees and so the most valuable claim that really drove the money in this case these plaintiffs don't have because their first filing with a paga claim was november two thousand and eleven we shut the machines off october two thousand to derive only from the machines they dropped from the labor for violations as well but we're not worried about those because we've already been a questions based upon my comments just wanted to address the real twenty three h requirements under f r c p twenty three h regarding the timing of the notice for seeking attorney seize costs in class and hansen award indicated the twenty three h wasn't complied with in accordance with the in re mercury decision because the fee motion wasn't filed prior to the objection to the notice itself says is a settlement final the settlement is not yet final the court is scheduled a hearing and for two thousand and thirteen to consider whether to approve the settlement and request by pass counsel for attorney's fees of twenty five percent of the settlement and costs no more than fifty thousand dollars in payments to jeffrey you can appear at the hearing but you don't have to you can hire your own attorney at your own expense and this is probably the most significant aspect of the the notice in relation to this issue appear speak for you at the hearing so in relation to complying with twenty three h and giving class members the opportunity to object to the motion the seat but in the big picture is it's representation correct that there were four or five wage an hour from on the class side they did and want one other issue that i want to point which you have indicated is this case is not necessarily about the appropriateness of the settlement in relation to the palin side because mr thurman submitted a declaration indicating that unless they receive fifty percent of the attorney's fees per se the settlement was no good they knew that there's going to be a reversion they knew how many people were going to be members of the class they knew all of these things they told us that and they wanted to you know essentially make money out of this case and if that because they're not participating in the attorney's fees here gospel churchgoer the fact that in effect quest the first of the personal challenges don't impact my thinking much what i'm interested in the substance of this is do you agree with the labor ready's counsel that there's no way to put a value on the just of and the reason i ask that is a lot of the description of the value had to do with saving time for class members and as the class counsel i guess i wonder is there not a w that an expert witness could put some value on the saved time for members from important people i i'm not sure whether or not an expert witness can set a value for that time specifically because judge clowes or deny classification judge clowes or deny class certification in part because he he could not  satisfy or the plaintiffs in that case cannot satisfy rule twenty three in terms of the predominant issue and part of the predominant issue is to be able to identify and provide a damages model for that case so if  said that it couldn't be done why should our expert witness do the same thing one other issue that i wanted to tell you no it's not really my job to try to answer your question i don't think i will know that the counsel for labor ready said that there were certain benefits in people giving tax or no at home so they wouldn't have to drive in there and you know i don't understand why someone couldn't as to meet an average number of hours these these impacts say and put a dollar value for the workers per hour it's possible i mean i presume that it's possible to do that all indicated the time spent travel i mean obviously the time spent traveling is worth something there's a value associated with that maybe so lot in a nutshell what because we've already thinking over your time but that was in part because of labor ready's argument but if you  nutshell from your perspective how would you describe why you would contend the district court is an adequate searching  consistent with bluetooth we've provided a lot of evidence to the court mr garrett who's here in this courtroom whose side counsel for for labor ready provided a declaration under penalty of perjury explaining all of the material changes made in the way sion to the practices the value there there was no finding of value on that and i think deference some amount of deference should be given to the trial court judge in relation to gauging the benefit to the class as opposed to necessarily putting a value on it in these class actions usually we place a value will this cost class members x this cost class members why this cost class members easy and  really place value on that it's difficult to do is it necessary our belief is that it's not and our belief is that and our position is that the discretion should be given to the tr judge in order to set the magnitude of benefit to the class but the court does us right yes the right questions correct and i think based upon the record the trial court had before it all of the material changes that were made to the policies and practices in relation to the claims pled in place this case here to what extent can the trial court take i think is more of a two prong analysis i think irrespective of the injunctive relief twenty five percent based upon the top common fund based upon the u s supreme court decision of boeing the then where fun was created by class members and not everybody filed a claim and the u s supreme court said the fun was created irrespective of the number of claimants twenty five percent or percentage of the recovery ok seven or eight percent in this in this process in this case there's seven or eight percent claimants in this case to what extent would it be more honest i mean taking a presumption of twenty five percent of the fund to say look the attorney sees a million and a quarter well reasoned i mean that that in terms of accomplishing the purposes of of the class action to begin with these claims would never have been filed individually but for the threat of a class action the lawyers added value added public value by accomplishing the change of business purpose and so therefore these artificial of course it's a good benchmark to have twenty five percent of the fun but rather than trying to jack up the value of the class fund to say look a million and a quarter is a lot of money and it's not unreasonable it's not an unreasonable payment to accomplish that then what can a district judge look at that way decision can look at it that way and there's no reason not to there's substantial benefit in relation to policies and practices changed by the company in relation to  case laguna on a class action settlement and they had a vigorous to say that one member of the panel on issues of i think you i just have a couple of big picture issues and then i'm going to respond to a few smaller or more discreet issues with respect to the larger issue i would say the judge gould is correct i think in suggesting or in a in his questioning  as to whether or not the district court conducted the circuits required required inquiry under bluetooth i don't believe that that was done i think would be very difficult to read the transcripts in those hearings and come out otherwise i would also point out as another kind of big picture issue that under the dewey vs volkswagen case which is from the third circuit but which we cited in our which we cited in our papers and is consistent with and cam regarding conflicts of interest under twenty three a linchpin of the adequacy inquiry is the alignment of interest and incentives between the representative plaintiffs and the rest of the class here we have shown that there is a misalignment of the interest between the class representative jeffrey allen and class members we have the ability to go forward on an aggregate basis and discrete claims that are going forward in some equal but separate forum in or betray sion and i get bases i don't know the let me ask you a i've got  no no no sustain your objection what happens right so it went back down and the settlement was undone we would move to intervene hopefully our motion intervene would also have been the denial of it would be reversed we would intervene and we would look to be appointed interim cl council and attempt to make sure that this settlement doesn't go forward and that there is a result happens or that the class we figure out a way to coordinate these different cases so that the class can actually get the relief to which it's required which it's entitled two hundred thousand low wage workers not just getting ten or twenty five dollars but actually getting something why isn't the public interested not in your interest well there's an alignment of our interests and we have clients and our clients have the ability to i mean to these claims to they have they have meal they have rest and they have business or expense reimbursement i would just point out that opposing counsel said that we that we have one claim we have we have me al the rest which is something that was left out of what they just had to say and also business expense reimbursement claims which are not the same thing as weight and travel time we can travel time is about hours work it's about compensating for time our claims are for the value of money expended out of pocket for business expense reimbursement it's entirely different in the case from the california supreme court makes the distinction i would also just point out that on this terror shooting issue we were contacted by class members to bring these distinct claims one year after our case our cases are not copycat cases these are distinct claims and break rest break and when you go to claim so those are not the same and we did not just copy copy their suit there was also i just wanted to point out there was nothing in the record demonstrating that the mediator actually bless the settlement there was perhaps due to mediate or confidentiality there was not anything saying that was glass there was simply evidence that there was a mediation i just wanted to  point that out there's no evidence that in fact the settlement is based upon what the mediator and his proposal in the i don't believe the records are not presented but i don't believe the record says anything about what the mediator said or what the mediator's actual proposal unclear even what their motion was about so after referring to their class or papers in coherent in comprehensible we then added the c d m a claim and that was the first time with respect to the injunctive relief that was only an added after our objections and is only forward looking that does nothing to compensate eight years worth of prior workers who had their money or their time not paid for or their expenses not reimbursed it does nothing for that even if it was intended to obvious which is that to the extent it's relevant it does nothing for the class members who actually have lost money or not been compensated for their time even if it were worth something well it does for people who still work there but as they pointed out most of the people who are our clients no longer work for them so what about them must have records about their employees and certainly there are ways we suggested for instance that notice being made by publication in order to make sure that it was better known and out there in the community because these are trans union workers i think that there was pushback on that and they require that it be only by one postcard and first class mail probably the worst way to reach transition workers and only after our objections that they add on to do and post something in their offices but yeah i think the best way to reach these workers would be through publication and finally i would say that one of the reasons perhaps that there was enough that no attempt made to value jobs over a practical person where we could publish perhaps in a newspaper or maybe online on on something like craigslist where people who are looking for temporary work go to look for employment and then i would say finally the great value of the injunctive relief regarding the c d n claim one reason that perhaps it was not there was no valuation given by the plaintiffs and none asked for by the district court as a consequence or maybe not as a consequence would be that it would have required labor ready to concede the massive amount of money that it took out of people's paychecks to pay for the c d m a cian for eight years going backwards in other words if they were going to say here's the value of this here's the money we're no longer taking from people it would require them to do a calculation and probably come up with an enormous number that would also demonstrate what they had taken from their employees for the eight years going backwards if there are any further questions we would be left there any further questions we would submit thank you thank you very much your hon