revolves on essentially one single legal issue that's now been resolved in the district court after the concepcion case came out by the u s supreme court appellants individual wage in our claims were that the district court in force the waiver of power which is to say a pro who bishan on seeking where the right to seek aggregate penalties either in court or in arbitration this is a blue bloomingdale's briefing page forty eight be it's a very significant difference to the difference between them because they are even though there are similarities between pago and seeking damages or other relief under the labor code they're actually quite different and that's i  know you need a violation in order to recover under partner you need a violation you don't need to have sustained any injury you need to be an aggrieved person which means you know there's been a violation and you've been harmed in some way if any person who is employed by the alleged violator and against whom one or more of the alleged violations was committed now i understand that good is that what is a violation of what is a violation mean so a violation means that there was a failure by the by an employer to meet its obligations under the labor and the employee suffered no harm may not that there are a number of cases like mckenzie versus fed ex by judge fees which which is i believe a two  actually go into great detail discussing that well in any event look the problem is you did have an arbitration proceeding that's just so why couldn't that be raised you to cotton now and everything is just resolve you're all done it's not really over and done with it's not ris raise and they paid premiums for it which would mean that miss vitello has not suffered any damages she hasn't been injured but there was a violation which provides her with standing under the labor code in in  the the giving we're not giving of a premium it afterwards say even the bloomingdale's corrected its mistake right in this the toll it can still maintain upon this is correct as it conclusively as a matter of california law the california supreme court had said has said that employers don't get to choose they don't get to say we're either going to provide the meal breaks or we're going to pay a premium the failure to provide the meal break is itself the violation for purposes of paga if the makes no difference if they paid the premium way trip for having recognized it means that they don't know damages in this is the toll but it doesn't mean that if the labor commissioner came in to prosecute or to audit bloomingdale's and to see whether or not they were violating the labor code it does not mean that the labor commissioner would be precluded from issuing citations for violations that's what pov is about it's focused solely on the defendants conduct and whether or not this you this if let's say you go back to the district court litigate well it could be there there are a number of things that could be decided our position would be what are those things that could be decided so our position would be we would go back to the district court and we would brief whether or not we in fact have suffered an injury here we believe we have and we believe that for pago purposes we have standing they would say that we haven't that would have to be determined afterwards we would also let's say that this report said ok we find that you did in fact suffer injury and you have standing to proceed with paga there would be an issue about whether we have the right to proceed with respect to the other violations alleged in the complaint or whether we're limited to seeking penalties for the one that we a llege that we suffered that's an issue that the courts have been wrestling with as well because under the paga statute it says that the pago plaintiff needs to have suffered needs to have been affected by least one of the violations so we were in our position is that having to be affected by at least one of the violations means that if you have one you can collect for the others there's a district court case dissent to see miss from two thousand and seven that found that very thing the case is actually  defendants attempts to force a plaintiff to prove his or her standing before being able to seek penalties on other for other violations the obvious reason seems that when i read it read you know when you rediscover any and you read our ninth circuit case you read those two williams and you will it seems to me that if this matter were before the district court today the court wouldn't do what it did precisely i think that's precisely correct and what we're really talking about here at the end of the day is the fact that the district court's ruling below will have reclusive in fact as the penalties for thousands of employees and against the state of california and it will foreclose the ability to seek civil penalties for for a significant amount of time the problem is though you know the law wasn't as it you know the law hadn't yet developed completely she did get a full blown arbitration proceeding an arbitrary result of an arbitration proceeding can be  these are picayune differences these are not in fact trivial these are significant differences lead to the claim either being eviscerated or not ok save your breast your time for representative action the arbitration itself defended it differently absolutely found that mr cole had it's suffered no labor but we know today though that if this matter had been before this is the district court today and you'd filed your motion to remand these matters to early for these matters to arbitration there isn't it's pretty clear yes would have been no your honor i respectfully disagree service was a paga representative claim there was no separate causes of action for a labor code violations here there were separate causes of action for a labor code violation and it is appropriate under those cases to send to arbitration the labor code violations for resolution if they're separate plan and then after that proceeding is over to then go back to the district court and litigate your partner representative action obviously if there are no labor code violations you need not do that that is and that is also consistent with the  complaints you know generously or whatever to the to the pleader right you have your basic rules and so when you go to the to the way this complaint w the first amended complaint it like the first cause of action is for violation of california labor code section five ten eleven ninety eight goes through and makes the allegations and then at the very end of that cause of action it says labor code violations in the in the arbitration that arbitration cygnus final and you don't have to give collateral estoppel of it's not the issue  the issue is is there a labor code violation the arbitration decision is a final decision it's binding and it's specifically says there are no labor code violations so there is nothing to send back because that there  i would just like to address one other issue that was noted is that it was mentioned that it is a violation there's really  automatically got one hour pay and that's what's been referred to however after after birth the fact that you may have clocked out one minute late for lunch does not establish a violation ran because by definition mr toller can't possibly you know with respect to the violations of the mill break of the mill break provision that we spoke of earlier which i believe provides standing for plaintive to twenty six point seven c of the labor code says if an employer fails to provide an employee a meal or rest or recovery period in accordance with state law the remedy is a is paying a premium clearly the paying of the premium is only under is made only under certain circumstances which is where there has been a failure to provide a meal period break in in accordance with state law that is precisely what we have here and these aren't random documents and records these are this is evidence in the appellate record th corrects the violation it's difficult to accept the notion that she's still an injured and injured for purposes of and i understand your honor and i think that that's why in briefing we would explain to judge fisher that that paga claims and po actions being law enforcement actions have a different focus of them which is why i had to say that this is an action that's been going on for many years for an employee only worked in number of weeks is simply a false statement this is a law enforcement action that's