we'll hear argument first this morning in case fourteen eight fifty seven campbell a wild company versus gomez mr gar thank you mr chief justice and may it please the court to affirm the ninth circuit on the first two questions has what amounts to a substantive right to class litigation that applies as soon as a complaint is filed and that entitles the case to proceed even if his individual claim drops out before and is there any controversy over whether the take it on that assumption and i think you should your honor now now they have argued below that the only reason that it wasn't for complete relief was that because it didn't provide for attorneys fees but the t c p ed underlined statute here does not provide for attorney merits question as to whether they're entitled to attorney's fees if the question is completely complete relief means what the plaintiff has asked for the plaintiff has asked for attorney's fees here i don't think that's what complete relief means you're on i think it means that the plaintiff has received everything that he could that he could if you receive a judgment wells he would be fine he would receive a finding of liability which you didn't that made in your offer he would  entitled to an injunction against that activity the activity that caused this particular situation and if others were shown to an injunction in other ways so i don't see how this could be putting aside the class action putting aside the attorney's fees those appear to be to be fairly critical liability determinations that were not made by the court below ok first as the case comes to the court i think it is except that the offer was for complete relief now let me try to answer the points that you raise first he's not entitled to a finding of liability if it litigant was always entitle to a finite life then sensually no case could become moot if you take the voluntary sation context litigant can always insist that he's still entitle to the finding wife and it seems he is wise to write and an opinion saying that a settlement offer is equivalent to a judgement and we've had cases like the conan case in which there was a settlement approved by the court case dismissed then the settlement was not performed they went to court seeking an injunction the court said no no you have a contract you have to file again you have to go into a different court you have to start all over again a settlement offer and a settlement contract and a settlement agreement are different from a judgment and you do not have a judgment well your honor i think that the accepted principle is that a settlement lutes the case and requires the court to dispose of the case and i think that's the accepted principle and but you didn't pursue that you didn't apply and the rules for judgment and if you want to write an opinion i don't want to settlement over the same as a judgment that just doesn't accord with federal rules of civil is deemed withdrawn and it cannot be used for any purpose other than to saddle the plaintiff with course if she hasn't get more than the offer so we have a f settlement offer so we think that the mechanics of rule sixty eight don't apply rather an end run around the law for our judgement well i don't i don't think so i mean it's still presents a question of whether the controversy still exists given that the defendant is off or the plaintiff everything can here's how i think it's different ron you're right it is different but it's different in that this court has repeatedly said that the class has no independent legal status until it certified and it's different in that in genesis health care you had a statutory right to a collective action but the court said that didn't trump article three and here alre joined it will it was still pretty important to the plaintiff in that case and it was a statutory right in here the question is when the individual claim drops out is there any basis for the action to proceed simply so that on the potential that class could be sort of moderate one is  that's the cautionary argument that was made in roper and if i could say a couple things about that first the plaintiff in this case unlike the plaintiff in roper never made that argument below he never argued in favor of caution in fact the complaint if you look on page twenty the joint appendix touts that he has all the financial resources necessary to bring this action second of all in roper the court relied on that interest so we for the purpose of allowing the appeal from the denial of certification when the mood in the event occurred after the denial of certification so there you had a real relation back issue if the court had been wrong in denying certification then the case never would have become moot in the first place here or the moving event takes place before sort of the cation there's nothing to relate that if i could go he asked for an injunction or declaratory relief and he's not entitled to that and he asked for classification but he's not entitled to that and so the case is moot and the so the case is moot seems to me to be a non sequitur in other words he's asked for these things you haven't offered these things there's a dispute about whether he's entitled to these things now you might be completely right as to that he's not entitled to attorneys fees but that has to be adjudicated you can't a court can't just say oh you've offered complete relief because in his view you haven't offered complete relief and that's what the litigation is all about and a court can make that determination just like a court can determine whether or not  defendant who says he's going to stop his action has truly voluntarily ceased force i can absolutely make that determination but the question is is the court make that determination in the guise of a moot in this motion well i think it absolutely does just like it w voluntary suspicion context i want to be clear because it might have a little bit of i can't get to that in the context of a summary judgment motion i mean why doesn't have to move the case wouldn't the appropriate vehicle be a summary judgment motion in which he would meet the facts that make you liable or you concede the facts that make you liable and then you fight about the legal questions that the reason is when when one party throws in the towel the match is over here the question is whether there is an article three case or controversy when the defendant is no longer fighting over the result as to the thing it issue that's those are the words of the court used in the san pablo case that's an article three determined i don't but what's an article three determination is whether he or it or she the relief that they asked for it may well be they're not in fine cherries hydel to have the court say it not you a court can certainly make the determination of whether or not they have provided complete relief in a case like this really dealing with liquidated damages that's no well you're right your honor that's the rule sixty eight offer if you go on page fifty seven a of the petition appendix there's the freestanding settlement offer which isn't a rule sixty eight offered the other thing about rule sixty eight is it really not designed for the situation of complete relief it's a sign for the situation of the defendant and plaintiff have to gamble essentially over whether or not an offer for less than complete relief is vision they want to settle on that basis in this case you have a freestanding settlement offer you provided for complete relief and so the question is whether or not that the plaintiff had a personal stake in the case efficient in the outcome of the case efficient to keep this case alive just kennedy to get back to your point about settlement and i think what's important to recognize here he's here is our position when the offer of complete relief is made and accord is determined that it is indeed for complete relief then the case has to come to an end now whether you say it's moot at that precise moment or whether you say it starts the ball rolling down the hill towards a dismissal or entry of judgment for the plaintiff based on the terms of the offer the point is is that when the defendant has offered everything courts can't go ahead and expound on the law i mean this court has repeatedly said when it's not necessary to decide it's necessary not to decide and that's the fundamental principle at stake here defendant has offered everything in the plea impose one day after the offer the defendant defaulted would have cases now with one's mood now become non moot well i mean that would be a unusual situation if it did case on it here in the court and you know roper's another case where there was an offer that the court never didn't really question that case where the offer mooted the claim on the merits the only question was whether they could appeal the denial certification mitigate entitlement for that i don't think you can describe it as a procedural right this court has said that rule twenty three is a procedural mechanism when the requirements are met it's said that there's no separate legal status for the class until the class certified jacob so why is it that we permit relation back at all well if if we have cases that say when a case has become in the middle of the litigation it can relate back to the beginning ok well first of appeal that's the roper case and the second is the inherently transitory exception now it's not even clear that the respondents are asking for either exception because i don't see a relation back when her transitory in their red brief but it's clear that the first exception doesn't apply because this case doesn't involve an appeal from the trial classification and it's clear that the second case exception doesn't apply inherently transitory because in genesis this court made clear that the concern of the so called picking off wasn't sufficient basis to say that a claim was inherently transitory that exception doesn't deal with the defendant's litigation conduct it deals with whether the claimants conduct is going to recur like a pretrial temporary detention situation this case doesn't fit into this except that exception all what what if the did did you finish your answer to yes or what if the defendant has a very shaky finances may be on the verge of bankruptcy or has a history of reneging on promises and the offer to provide full relief and that's the case even in that situation a couple of answers to that your honor first that's not an issue in this case they've never disputed campbell he was ability to pay second of all i think a court can determine that the plaintiff the defendant is ready and able to pay all in the situation where the case is dismissed for mootness based on the terms of the offer and then it turns out that they can execute the offer i mean that's a situation where the court the planet can go back to the court and say it based you would dismiss the case on an factual premises like the judge friendly decision that we cite in our reply brief so that situation is not going to happen and all of these practical concerns are going to go away if this court recognizes in this case that a defendant's offer of complete relief  any case or controversy over the individual claim the case goes away the plaintiffs are going to accept the only offer of complete relief from most of the defendant where it looks like the relief will be forthcoming if you lose this case and so the case is not moot still be considered as a factor in the court decision whether or not to sort of by the class i don't think it was certainly would be a classic certification decision factor your honor and i think any one it's certainly a very unusual situation where the personal representative has been made whole now there's simply that's what i asked if the trial judge could in his discretion consider that as a factor in certifying the well i suppose you could in that terms a person represented but the real question is why would you want to court to expound on the law difficult questions about certification as this court knows as well as anyone when there's no case or controversy to begin with when the defendant is offered the plaintiff everything and then the question is if he has individual claim drops out you're right your honor about that distinction but i think what judge friendly said applies equally here which is that when a plaintiff loses an individual interest in the case he has no no right to to litigate on a class action because it might benefit others he also pointed out that the offer of complete relief in this case and in this kind of situation puts the plaintiff in a better position than a default judgment the plaintiff has everything that he asked for he's walking away with the money and to your point earlier just to sort of my three railroad cases you cited as proof that this is always been the case but do you have anything besides those things in the common law i can't find any situation in which a court accepted a offer that wasn't accepted by the party and thereby overall cook cases what they found was that an offer was made and the other side by taking money accepted the offer but now you found any case in the common law that where there was an offer that was an exception was entered by the court but will three responses to that first in the san pablo case for example the court's decision specifically makes clear that the plaintiff refused that offer second of all course if acceptance was the rule then it's a little bit odd that the court didn't mention that the fact that he didn't accept it at all the other point i want to make a response just isn't my first question is we cited a along footnote in our opening brief that has many cases recognizes principle and then i reply brief we cite the holding case out of the english courts it's an eight hundred forty case and that case is exactly on point involve a situation where the claim was watford that the defendant came in and said here's your money and the court in that case  you know you you have an old english case you have these three cases in the ninety's eight hundred ninety s which were really about liabilities and that had already been satisfied and the court said it's already been satisfied pavement has already been made but there's really no history at all and tender offers have existed for a long long time there is no history at all of a saying that a tender offer a case as opposed to the classic understanding the common law understanding of tender offers was that it created an incentive for parties and that that was their purpose and that was their effect was to incentivize parties to do something but not for not to provide a mechanism for a court just to throw out a case when a party decided that for whatever reason he thought that the tender offer was not good enough so i think first just quibble i do think there's a longstanding practice of recognising that when has been offered everything he could secure the case goes away second of all i think you know maybe more important and i would say that your dissent in genesis health care except itself recognizes that exceptions can't be the rule in all cases and you recognize in the situation where the plaintiff doesn't except for often see a man this but once you're there you recognize that acceptance can't be the rule and that's got to be right because in the voluntary secession context we don't require the plaintiff to us that i said that mutinous is not the appropriate remedy in that case the appropriate remedy in a case where it's absolutely clear that that the that the defendant has given has offered the plaintiff everything the plaintiff has asked for which it's not in this case but where it's absolutely clear where the defendant has offered everything that the plaintiff himself has asked for go on any further because he's going to offer everything is the case comes of this court then the ex then then the question for the court is how do we dispose of it do we tell the lower court to dismiss it as moot or do we tell the lower court enter judgement for plaintiff based on the terms of the offer at which point it clearly becomes judgment where the court is picking a winner or loser the court is simply recognizing the fact that then it is offered everything misjudge are the only way that i see a court entering judgement in the federal rules of civil procedure a rule fifty six judgement someone moves in and says you've got everything you're entitled to the other side comes back and says no i'm in a title two attorneys fees are entitled to whatever and the court says no you're not this is a full satisfaction i entered judgment i don't know why we have to make a marriage determination based solely  that offer of judgment well first of all a judgment is technically in order to suppose you know the case and we went back and look and you yourself is just a court judge issued judgments in cases where you dismissed it as moot it just reflects that the cases come to an end and second of all what thing affirmative givenchy your honor those are those are according to satisfaction for example is a contract based doctor and it happens we're where payment is made before the case gets the litigation there's no principle the litigation begins the principle that controls article three article three scase and controversy requirement work requires that the plaintiffs have to have a personal stake a lot of personal stake in the outcome of the case at all stages of the proceeding and on the first question our point is that once you've been offered everything you could receive and again that's how the case comes here and he has been offered everything that he could get through favorable judgment on his individual claim there's no longer a personal stake in litigating that case to the outcome but about the person i think that  and just as was true in genesis health care the would be class representative is in the same exact position he was before this case goes away because you can still file zone claim he can settle that claim he can provide you can files on class action and you'll hear what we're arguing matter in these sorts of class actions where they get pennies on the dollars of their claim the big money goes to the class action lawyers here all of this can be addressed if congress wants to address it by dressing as both sides risks us action policy arguments but it's important not to let those drive is pretty technical moot this question so if we could just take the class action arguments out of it just let's say that there is a plaintiff and he claims ten thousand he wants ten thousand dollars plus attorney's  and the defendant says i'll give you ten thousand dollars and the plaintiff says no i really want to turn these fees to and the defendant says no you're not entitle to attorney's fees plaintiff says i think i am i think i'm going to reject your settlement offer so you say at that point the court can come in and say oh the case is moot now how is that possible in there if there is a there is a contested question as to what one person owes another the diff the defendant has said he doesn't want to accept this offer because he doesn't think it gives him everything it's entitled he's entitled to and the measure of complete relief has to be at this stage about what his complaint asks for it's just like the voluntary sation determination it doesn't every other context in which madness arise and article three wants the court to make that strawman ation before the court goes on and expound on the law if i could return reserve the remainder of my time thank you counsel mr chief justice and may please the court campbell evolves muteness argument fails because an offer of complete relief cannot render a case moot at most the offer might justify a forced entry of judgment but not if there even though if you're getting everything you want what is the case or controversy what is the live dispute in which you have a personal stake to the terms we use under article three of the live dispute is in obtaining a court judgment that incorporates that relief that's been offered so what is it you're worried about that they won't make good on the offer or the mere offer of complete relief does not have anything to do with mootness even if the plaintiff and the defendant agree on what the proper judicial relief should be the only question in that situation is whether the court should enter judgment for the plaintiff not dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction shows mr gar right now were to take a big stack of cash out of his briefcase or a certified check and present that to you would there be any case left the there might be a defense on the merits if mr karr's client can say we've paid the debt but that's not something that goes that we believe there were already a case or controversy if this were an individual action and the pla defense on the merits he could plead according to satisfaction he could plead rest you don't call i is there a live case or controversy because what is the controversy because there's an there's a past injury that's been alleged caused by the defendant that could be redressed in theory with judicial relief that the which would give the defendant with which would give the plaintiff what in addition to the money under my home he shouldn't get anything in addition to what he's already received but that goes to the merits not to whether in our case or controversy exists on the court you're saying the defendant as is an interesting part of the plaintiff has an interest in the judgment yes quite separate from obtaining all the relief that he request it results in adversity the concrete injury is the past injury that he's already suffered that the injury has already been remedied it's a defense that goes to the merits it doesn't go to article three everyone who you know just i'm talking about and everyone agrees justice kennedy that under your hypothetical the case should be thrown out of court the only dispute is whether it's thrown out of court on jurisdictional grounds and article three or whether it's balanced on the merits because the defendant has an affirmative defense voluntary sation move the case whether the pla likes it or not if if it's certain that the conduct won't reoccur well if it's certain that they're going to give you the money that you ask for why isn't the same result applied in other words why is it not simply what the plaintiff wants who doesn't want the money he's asking for he wants a judgment that will give him the money as far as i can tell that's your argument when you're dealing with past injury mr chief justice there's always a past injury that remains but there has even if there has to be adversity is the chief justice mentioned in his first question and the defendant says no you're not entitled to that there is it first justice kennedy now the plaintiff is not legally entitled to additional damages on the merits if he's already been paid but again that goes to the merits that's not part of the article free inquiry redress ability under article three do relief if granted by the court would redress the injury that he put a lot of weight on what the plaintiffs but there's another interest here which is the the court's interest you're being given everything you want you say well we've had a past injury would you ask for relief on that and that is what you're being given and yet you say nonetheless we're entitled to enlist the court in the court's time and not only that under article three we're entitled to get a legal ruling even though there's no if there's nothing more that they can give you just just  court does not say as a matter of law or if as a finding of fact that we were offered complete relief what the district court said on page forty is that it assumes for the sake of argument that the offer constitute a complete relief no only is our only are we counsel it's  circuit proceed to decide the case on the basis of the assumption that the district court factual determination was correct no the ninth circuit assumed for the sake of argument i think is the same as proceed to decide no i don't i don't i don't agree mr chief justice there was binding precedent in the ninth circuit already before we got there in diaz and pets that said that even an offer of complete relief from the defendant does not move the case so if the defendant throws up his hands and unconditionally surrenders whether it's a class action or not that has nothing to do with forced entry of judgment on the one hand with this on the other what forced entry of judgment is one of the remedies for looters oh those are mutually exclusive if the case is moot a court cannot enter  circumstances only proper response in that situation is to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under rule twelve p one really never judgment i think i think when there has been a settlement and the parties have agreed to a settle forbids the entry of any type of judgement so for campbell evolve to come into this court and say that the district court retained the profit to enter judgment on the merits after the offer of complete relief has been tendered is a confession that the offer of complete scalia but it's still a judgment under bill fifty eight it is court ordered relief and a court cannot do that in a case when it lacks subject matter jurisdiction mootness and forced entry of judgment are mutually exclusive so just to be clear on the facts without getting into dispute let's say that the offer is for the real all relief that you've asked for ya the question of what you think you're entitled to or what they think everything you've asked for including all attorney's fees so there's no question of cost shifting or anything like that all injunctive relief they come to you and say you're right the injunction you say there's still a case or controversy that could proceed to litigation there is a case for controversy that might lead to a forced entry of judgment if the plaintiff or obstinacy or other types of is a legal melody is not getting that money is sent if the plaintiffs being obstreperous or whatever you know that just refusing to take it for spite or some reason in that case and to a judgment not not dismissed for mootness what would the judgment say the judgment would say you a judgment but that's a contradiction in terms and i think it is moot his judgment that you're talking about would be he offered this it's everything that you asked for we are ordering that he pay it and and  now the thing is still and now it's backed up with the force of the court it can be enforced with contempt citations which a mere offer of complete relief can in fact and then accept that offer has no legal effect at all they're going to judgment if the case is dead when there's when the judgement is entered it seems to me it's even more dead when you've actually got the case in hand if you have the judgment you may have to enforce the judgment you don't actually have anything of value you have a piece of paper you still have him even still have to enforce the judgment that's much easier than enforcing  somebody gave you the choice between a judgment that says you're entitled to a certain amount of money and the money itself in your hand you would rather have the judge we don't have the money in our hand it's been offered dead but that was my first hypothetical if you did if you actually had the money in hand if we actually had the money in hand we're not entitle to an additional judgment because the defendant in that case would have a defense on the merits it still doesn't justify throwing us out of court on m case has to be tried even when you didn't pay i tried to use i want the judgment you know and you say it's not the court can say we're terminating the litigation and entering judgment for you mr plan if because you're not accepting an unconditional surrender from the defendant you don't go to trial in that situation you enter judgment for the plaintiff it's not to be thrown out for lack of jurisdiction but jurisdictional dismissal sends the plaintiff home empty handed with nothing no judicial relief at all this unaccepted offer is just out there it hasn't been accepted it can't be enforced in any way so if i contract not by any remedy if mr gars you're leaving the court courtroom today says here we will accept an entry of judgment one we'll make sure you get whatever attorneys fees you want and we will accept an interview of judgment th then the case would be over but certainly would not be moot would it be over if he wants to accept an entry of judgment on everything that we've asked for which includes the attorney's fees and a real injunction not a big obey the law injunction that's in his offer and class class relief well that's the whole thing right this is all about class certification but we one does not get the class certification until the court first concludes that the individual claims have become moot and there's no way the claims can be mooted out simply by and also the case comes down to once we put away the size that you're getting everything you as the plaintiff in this case has asked for it all comes down to whether or not you can get the class certified but it comes the question presented asked whether the offer of complete relief moved to the case and your question you're so excuse me sorry and you're saying that it's not because of the possibility that you could get a class certifying but that's my hypothesis as you get everything else ok yes the only thing they don't say they enter a judgment you want to judgment here your judgement you want all the attorney's fees here's all your attorney's fees you want an injunction you know go ahead and write your injunction but you say still not because you might be able to be the representative plaintiff in a class action that's one of many reasons why it's not i don't see why that wouldn't be a good why not what they say is that the right way to go about this is and they cite cases and so forth in the nineteenth century is that the defendant should not there you're right it's not an offer of relief what they say is the defendant is supposed to tender the money and when he tenders the money if the plaintiff won't accept it he goes to the court and he deposits the money in the court and the court then issues a judgment saying this case is over that's what i read here pages nine to eleven and they have lots of authority and that gets rid of the problem and there's no it seems to me if it isn't right why isn't it it may be over but it's not  does is say they want ten thousand dollars what the defendant does is he says they won't take my check which should be certified so we deposit it in court the judge at that point should say the defendant has all he wants the case is over good bye and of course if that person now has all he wants he can't certify this is a class because he isn't harm he gets judgment on the merits of the situation question asked i am interested in the question i am asking or it may very well be that if the defendant in that case comes into court and says the case is over the district court would have the prerogative to enter a judgment on the merits for the defendant because the plaintiff has already been paid and the plaintiff can't double that that go to the merits but campbell it will never ask the district court for judge that is not what i said that you now sound as if you were agreeing with the a f l see i don't agree with it because they're implying that that would boot the case no they don't say what the effect of that would be what i want look i'm being practical ok and the practical thing is that the defendant wants to pay off the plaintiff by giving him everything he want we are getting there a to do what they say is yes the way to do it is you tender the money in a certified check and if you won't take it pay the money into court and the judge then enters a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs who has gotten everything he asked for if he's gotten everything he's asked for that go not the class certification there's nothing in there that apart from class action which is a more complicated question but no it's not a more about this is what i already know in my hypothetical  i'm saying in those circumstances do you agree do you or do you not agree and if not why not the only thing that's left is you'd like says the plaintiff class certification or at least a lawyer the case is not over if you're talking about classification because roper holds specifically that the representative plaintiff can continue with the getting the class certification even though there's been a certified check tendered to the plaintiff and a judgment has been entered giving the saying the case is over because he's got everything he want that was the situation and broker there was a forced entry of judgment imposed on the representative planets and this court allowed the representative to continue litigating the class certification issue because he had a financial stake in the class right what was the other one the other one would be the incentive award that he would recover if the class a certified in the case proceeds you get a settlement or a victory and that's another incentive award instead of award normally a representative plaintiff after a class got certified in the settlement but is there any concern that a plaintiff who has received or has been offered all relief that he could receive is an appropriate representative plaintiff of the parties who have not gotten all the revenue that might be something for a court to consider twenty three whether this person is an adequate representative but we don't think there's much of a difference there because the incentive award still gives him incentives to press for the fellow class members and this courts upheld he tam litigation where so the argument is that  individual plaintiffs has gotten everything that he has asked for and i realize you argue that isn't the case you're not even close to is an is entitle to proceed with the litigation because he might get a bonus from forced entry of judgment have no i ask you just a practical questions mr gardner right that this is the case if you were to proceed if it were the class were certified and you get a judgment this is a case where the class action attorneys are going to get a lot and the members of the class are going to get virtually nothing you would have to do you would have to prove that to establish damages would you not that the members of the class did not consent to receive these messages right that that's correct and i would jump to that how would you be able to how can you prove that somebody some member of the class at some point when they were agreeing to something on the internet didn't click a box that said i agreed to receive messages from they're entitled individual class members it's a practical matter i'm going to say get up and what do they get in the settlement i would imagine they would probably give settlement if it settles what if it's not they're entitled to five hundred dollars apiece and statutory damages that could be traveled to one thousand you have to check a box or submit a form that says you're interested in receiving e mails or text messages about certain topics and in this case the navy instructed can believe all of the sent text messages only to people who had opted into receive information about money for stand mr chief justice and may please the court i'd like to take the opportunity to clarify the article three question by addressing the elements of an article three case controversy and established federal practice that i believe shows that an offer  not accepted offer in particular cannot make a case and if there's time i'd like to address the derivative saga in first there's a distinction that this court is established between perspective relief and retrospective relief when you seek prospective relief you need to show an ongoing or imminent injury in that context a defendant can actually hold the injury that's necessary by stopping so long  retrospective relief damages the injury is in the past it's not undone an offer of money may be compensation for that injury but the injury continues to exist for purposes of article three the question is there has to be an injury it has to be fairly traceable that's established by the past injury that caused by the defendant and the requested you just show relieve would likely redress the injury now the requested relief even when there's been an offer is i want money second homes those are the three requirements for article three standing with is an additional requirement of add versus one of those three requirements that are that are set forth in our in our opinions to deal with the relief i've either the case is moot i think that's what's going on here that there is a distinction between it has to be injury in fact ok it has to be attributable believe it's imbedded in if someone comes in and says yes you've been injured the court could provide relief put i i agree with all of that and here's the money well then the case is not the court enters a judgment ordering relief which is enforceable with all the court's powers which is quite distinct from a judgment of dismissal for one of jurisdiction that's what you need to have know attempt to kind of frame this either as you know a prospective relief case or a case where you're getting a judgement a judgement of dismissal for one of jurisdiction is not an enforceable judgement in the way that is relevant for purposes of article three jurisdiction yang i do understand what you and petition and the respondents counsel arguing which is someone a judge has to say at some point this is in fact complete really and enter a judgment for that complaint if that's your art in part i believe that's right parties could stipulate if they are if they accept an offer of settlement that's like a stipulation saying this is complete relief for us there's no adversity in the part and the parties when they agree when they say we've agreed and we give up the case will normally be thought of as moot but there's there are several longstanding federal practices both in federal courts actually as well as in state courts that i think reflects this point a party parties can agreed to settle a case but court retains jurisdiction to enter a consent decree this isn't in forcible judgement even though the case is moot right know it when there's a settlement offer which been accepted the court to nonetheless issue a judgment enforcing that settlement no the case is not moot because the parties are content are saying we are agreeing the entry of a judgment now we're agreeing abstracted to own and settle the case and so so even though the parties have no adverse masoud all and they all agree on what the outcome should be but we want a court to go into this satisfaction payment residue to card what happens on other grounds of lack of jurisdiction when if the plaintiff has no injury there is no injury court in other words the requirements for article three jurisdiction that you rehearsed what happens in that case no jurisdiction for another reason besides moot the court would dismiss the case for one of jurisdiction saying that there is no injury well what if the plane of comes in and says well i want i want to judgment or because what other but bases or i want i want whatever reason i mean they were insisting on a judgment even though arguably in korea test of course be addressed at the relevant stage of the case so for instance at the pleading stage if you fail to allege injury sufficient i think you're wrong i think if there's no standing i don't think you get too specific as moot i think you get a judgement for the defendant because the plaintiff has no standing it's not it it's a judgement that there is a lack of standing that you have no injury is not a resolution of the claim itself indeed so so the fact that the court issues judgement has nothing to do with whether there's article three standing whether there is mootness or not you didn't enter the judgment even though there's no article three there is that there is a difference between a judgement for want of jurisdiction that the court is just i don't have the power to address this and a judgment where the court says i have power to him to enter relief that isn't forcible through collateral proceedings through all the the great power of a federal court that  difference a court requires article three jurisdiction to exercise that power over the litigants and that's what normally happens with consent decrees with dismissals with prejudice with judgment under rule sixty eight offer and also converse lee even when  party's been fully paid the fact that the defense of payment accord and satisfaction can all be waived so at the end of the case of the defendant hasn't actually raised these and then belatedly assessed forgot i paid the guy in the claim is fo r thousand dollars the court says sorry forfeited judgement for another thousand so even if so even if the is given all the relief which he's entitled you say the plaintiff still has a right to involve the federal court in that i was i can't say that controversy because if you still have a right to call go into federal court and say i know federal court you're busy with a lot of things but i still want you to hear my case even though i've gotten everything i could and i don't want to mislead the court into thinking that we're advocating protracted litigation on claims where there is a powerful defense like payment that is a merits defense we paid the claim you don't you can't get any more money from me but for question the question of the court's power to entertain that again not an article three question but a week twenty three question i think that could be considered by the court in exercising its discretion of the rule twenty three can i want to know what the position is i think if the i think that's hard and let me tell you w to be an adequate represented at representative the class you can't simply be looking out for your own interests you have to be looking out for the interests of the class and that's part of the requirement a defendant who says i'll just accept my money and drop the interests of the class you know it's not  wonder whether that defendant is a plaintiff is actually good at what representative rule twenty three you know and again we're now we're stepping away from the article three question we're getting into questions of discretion thank you counsel mr gar you have four minutes  principle the controls here and i am so confused by your argument you get to say on your own unilaterally i offered you complete relief even though right or wrong the plaintiff is asking for a particular injunction and a particular chinese leave you without any judicial interpretation intervention get gets involved no matter what right as it always would for a minister terminations of course so you offered and they wanted an injunction the court can ensure that injunction and putting aside the class action  dollars correct your i think just as clear had exactly the right answer on this which is that there's decades if not centuries of practice dealing with the situation and settlement context everyone agrees this court is repeatedly said that the settlement routes the case that doesn't mean the courts don't have a can the defendant can always plenty of noise say i want to judgement we're down to the question really of how do we get rid of this case because i think that even they recognize that that can really if the offer is for complete relief of the courts below hell case has to come to an there's there's two options for this court one you hold it the case should be dismissed as moot and two if you don't agree with that then two you hold that the case should be disposed of by entering judgment for the plaintiff based on the terms of the settlement of the offer complete relief that's the six circuit rule you can go and look as we did there are plenty of judgments where the courts implemented that wall there's no evidence of any difficulty you know implying that and what that does is it does rosa's of cases in a common sense fashion it prevents court from going courts from going ahead and expounding on the law in cases in which they have no business doing so if i can make one point on the immunity issue justice ginsburg you're exactly right they sued the wrong party my medics did everything in this case and work at least in title two immunity from vicarious liability thank you counsel cases submitted