judge carnes is instructions at the beginning and terms of outlining what the argument will be i will just point out that i intend to confine arguments to the standing analysis that the district court engaged in as well as briefly the rule twelve florida administrative code issue we seek reversal of the district court's january nd two thousand and nineteen order dismissing the case for lack of subject to assert claims on behalf of class members who dined at different rates restaurants on different days than he did he did and does have standing because a he was subjected to the same corporate practice by the ritz namely the imposition of an automatic service charge without adequate disclosure be he suffered the same injury as all class members which was the payment of the charge and see he possesses identical to do the claims that trio of similarity is more than sufficient to carry the day for standing at least that the rule twelve stage as this court and has consistently held and the the courts arose from its sole focus on the three restaurants which mr fox dined in the days he ate there to the exclusion of the amended complaint details allegations that it was the rich's corporate disclosure practice that was consistent and propagated over a four year period ten hotels and forty nine specifically identified restaurants this was not a case where a plaintiffs sought to extrapolate and guess and  speculate as to a defendant's corporate right practice based upon his own isolated individual experiences but just as this court in cary although did not limit class certification to the singular dealership from which the representative plaintiff bought their catalogs for the day on which they bought their cadillacs because the misrepresentation as here was propagated statewide pacific restaurants where m ate and the days he ate there were immaterial or at least non dispositive given the other corporate wide state wide allegations the court's error was based upon improper fox's claims could only be limited to two days because the menus may have changed not only were not made in a light most favorable to him they actually contradicted the allegations in the complaint the court district court also guessed or speculated as to whether or not the menus may have changed day to day again not a proper speculation as the rule twelve stage where the complaint allegation demonstrate the contrary it may be true during this government that if defendants can prove that the men used buried so greatly which we don't think discovery will show based upon all of the manuals that we've reviewed it may be true that they can find that their base classes may be more limited there might be subclasses but that is not an analysis at this point the question here under rule twelve was whether or not the allegation supported the corporate wide practice inadequate disclosure and whether or not then that led to the amount in controversy under taxes being met now as a result of the court's error regarding the standing ten different hotels would easily lead to the confront that taxes five million dollars threshold was a fact that was not fact is supported by the fact that the rich never even raised the c argue before the district court that the amount was not played in good faith and factually it was wrong and challenge the facts as to the american controversy allegation regarding the jurisdictional limit was made in bad faith or that the the mass or the or the facts relied upon and reaching that allegation were either improper or not supported well they did they did argue that the damages and therefore the amount of controversy would be affected by how much they would have kept had not the automatic gratuity been included so i think  require that both it just requires the absence of one further lation the way i read it but if it is it undisputed that it was on the menu i'm sorry on the record your found that there was a failure to exhaust for not seeking directly from ritz carlton a demand for a refund yes your honor i think as we laid out in the briefs the reason for that is upon our prior to the two thousand and three i agree but noticeably absent from the from the grave or you from your reply is any discussion of the beaches case which is clearly after that and also after the middle district case the papa john's case isn't that a definitive interpretation of state law to which we are bound i don't think in my case i because i don't think it says that it's an exclusive remedy in this case and given the from the dealer explain to me how that's wrong because we don't see that there is any administrative remedies available here there's not one that may i eleven create a cause of action that administrative rule and if the answer is no i know what it says but nowhere within its terms does it events in would provide for example a civil cause of action that provides where then where do i look to find a basis for a civil cause of action for the violation of a section of this administrative rule that would be i guess seven was the one that deals with the two of these if not found in one and this particular rule where can i find the course of action i dealer when no taxes do must secure a refund of the tax from the dealer and not from the department of revenue but the even that doesn't create a cause of action it says you have to make a demand i suppose but i can't find it there and the only other thing that looked to me that be helpful was to one point two six the actual statute but that's dealing with getting a refund directly from the treasury after exhausting administrative remedy what what i'm asking is what is there in florida law that gives you a cause of being created by the legislature of florida yes your honor thank you where you find that is in the do but in the general prescription against unfair i'm sorry i just a voice came on to tell me that my line was now on muted and my autoblog this point you are quite on the ball and clear and we hope articulate that is left yet left to be were asked just marcus was correct that we did not raise the money the amount of money issue or threshold in our motion it was not a not that was not seen we believe that the visited i believe that is proper reading of griffin and not only myself but in the lower court in the district court and fox versus los corporation heckman versus s b e and the wire over suspicion management the district court t the and the injury of the class that's that there would be class where there's two things judge in the briefs my my opponent does not distinguish allegations that are made straight up under the umbrella of rule heaven and those that are made upon information and belie as concerns the twenty three dollars restaurants that they allege have no have no noticed and the total forty nine dollars restaurants those allegations are made upon information and belief moreover the specific allegations that are brought under the to the restaurant like keepers which was the next day it said again at the back and as per the complaint in the operative complaint in smaller font quota suggest an eighteen percent gratuity will be added to your check please feel free to raise lower or remove this but to a t at your discretion and they characterize that one as a mandatory gratuity so even as concerns the three restaurants at the same hotel specific allegations there is it shows that there is not consistency that there is no consistency one didn't have any noticed one said one thing the other said another clearly even within the one hotel there was no consistency or so or tell why practice and that is my answer to your question your honor but it seems to me the allegation particularly in fourteen and fifteen are that the question of standing the names playing the must allege and show that it has been personally injured at the injury is redress will by a court of law not at this stage in the if i understood your question correctly yes the district court however dismisses this case a lack of standing and the things to say the district court t things he says that this planet was only injured in so far as he went to three restaurants on three specific dates and he can't the plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged a basis for an individual claims that the defendants practices i'm reading from the opinion of the district court were unfair and deceptive in violation of state law to support a class action that nee sustain an injury that is retractable by a court he doesn't have to establish at this point the that the other putative members of the class in fact have been injured i'm sorry i lost track of your question maybe i didn't put it well let me let me try again does it matter at this point for standing purposes whether the other putative members of the class have standing standing only to make a claim for the injuries that he suffered at these three restaurants and there's no plausible interpretation of what he's pled that would reach the five million threshold we did math which you know i'm a lawyer so my math is not reliable but they would have had to have sold those three restaurants had sales of twenty seven million eight hundred thousand dollars or somewhere around there  that's assuming that they were to be awarded the entire eighteen percent which of course we agree with the trial court that they're not entitled to the entire eighty percent had he pled that he is one of those americans who never tips well then under the definition of actual damages he may have raised the level of eighteen percent but he did not say that and you know it is the trial judge look at this thing in the light of his common sense and judicial experience court is under griffin that he is only we're only talking about the three restaurants there is no plausible interpretation that gets him to the five million dollars because the hundreds of thousands of dinars which gets might get him to the five million  do not is not an allegation made or directed at three restaurant during a particular time frame in the state of florida and i simply assert in good faith that the amount in dispute was more than five million dollar given the number of people who brought back the car in the state of florida w this this is not just not that case i guess i bought my car i know other people bought this automobile in the state of florida many many dealerships throughout the state during the time frame and i with these other planets at this point that's a different question isn't it rather than whether they're standing to sue i've been injured and i claim that i can meet the elements the rules one and twenty can't get anywhere near five million because you don't know anything about these other people could i bring a class action i don't know what i have standing for sure the problem i'm not sure i rule twenty three am i missing something here judge i mean i think that the example that you've given me about the automobile is again more like to carry a little case that is more of  overall common business practice across the board that is a different situation than what you're talking here we're talking about individual restaurants and what they might or might not do it all revolves around whether or not he is limited to th restaurants that he visited and that he knows or at least alleges that they were misleading the menus were misleading and in violation of the statute and going back again to the check fourteen and fifteen the chief judge carnes directed me to those are general allegations conclusionary allegations that are not specific and  ones in which he made great restaurants he did you have to read them to get the context he made allegations about what happened at the free and then he makes the allegation about there's a the same as i've offered before there is there is no consistency no common practice even at the three restaurants where he can speak definitively to just quickly i'd like to just address a couple of things confining my my comments to what was just discussed first with regard  as well as the diff district court i think with and actually supports our position here because the issue in griffin was that the plaintiff in that case did not have the testing claim that he was seeking to assert on behalf types of things that create the nexus for standing as judge marcus pointed out earlier at this stage he clearly has alleged standing alleged standing because he had the same injury and it's subject to the same  also agree with judge marcus that i think what the district court did was conflate rule twenty three with article three standing doctrine which is an injury to get in federal court doctrine versus rule twenty across the state for everybody who bought that car regardless of the dealer that's the same as this situation under these allegations that all of the ritz restaurant at issue here committed the same inadequate disclosure and therefore it doesn't matter whether mr fox went to one restaurant or he went to all of them that's the allegation that's before the court right now as i said before to the extent that there is a they can prove  one or more of the restaurants didn't do it a class certification those restaurants would be carved out or that the claim would be limited but it's you can't do that at this stage these allegations are more than sufficient to plead katha jurisdiction which we did and the consumer can prove that he went to every best buy that misrepresented the t v or went to every store there is no way at the pleading stage that the consumer would ever be able to prove that type