has to be vacated because it entails a release of four distinct claims that were never pleaded never litigated and never valued in the blue action and for which the class received zero compensation now we think that this record raises an inference that in pursuing their desire to settle the only claim raise the only substantive claim raised in the balloon matter and over time compensation claim but in so doing they sacrifice the claims of absent class member it brings a heightened scrutiny to bear on priest certification settlements which is what we have here and that is also very circumspect in examining the procedures through which the district court reads its ultimate approval of the separate action called walker was filed in the central district of california it raised the same overtime excuse me unpaid overtime compensation claim as billoo but it also pleaded meal and rest break violations are you so in november of two thousand and fourteen walker's filed about a month later in december twenty fourth teen the blue and brings parties mediate again in this time their successful and their successful because they agreed to this broad  the blue parties signed their stipulation of settlement in a few months before the preliminary approval hearing so mr serrano also raises the unpaid overtime compensation claim in addition to neil in respray claims now turning back to the overbroad release here it releases four distinct claims factually and legally distinct that were never pleaded or litigated in blue those include in an reimbursed expenses claim a minimum wage claim and then the meal and rest break claims now you can scour this record and you're not going to find so much as an assertion by counsel below that they did anything even discussed let alone gather any evidence and put it before the district court concerning whole thing because there was not evidence before the district court to for that court to conclude that all of these claims could be released and so the whole thing needs to go back on that basis or say the whole thing would be put to be more  court needs to vacate the entitle entire settlement it needs to remember the case back to the district court if the blue and brinks council think that they can make a record showing that these four claims were adequately saran separate complaint you know the this separate the second class action no it won't because his meal and respray claims it lease for the sixteen month period that applies to the settlement have been that the claims your clients are wrong describes ballou did not even his class did not even possess and they're very different from what's described in the complaint they are there doesn't that lead to the logical conclusion if we were to agree with you i'm not saying we will but if we were to agree with you that the proper solution is to direct the district court to slice out sauron scorns i think that would be a great once again i did not ask anything about our authority i were asking about what you are seeking ok you keep talking about what we can do believe me we can do all sorts of stuff you can't imagine so so so so the question i was asking is what's really for you seeking but i would want to emphasize it's all four of these claims that i think need to be carved out not just the meal precariat and respray claims because again there's no evidence at all concerning the propriety of releasing the unpaid minimum wage claim or the send this back to the district court for we vacate the settlement and send it back for further proceedings the stay gets lifted i believe that's correct yes and then class actions covering similar territory well certainly there be one overlapping claim the unpaid compensation claim but the meal and respray claims are presently not they were never part of blue they're part sauron now if brinks wants to convene all counsel and talk about a global settlement you can certainly do that but that's that would be up to them otherwise these two cases would proceed proceed in parallel track context is that the trial court heard it reviewed the record heard the are going to counsel on the issue was significantly examined at the hearing about the meal and removed to be to be what does this too far removed come from you're just making it up well i thought i thought to settle actual claims if you bring me the bottom i didn't bring them i haven't i think that when you look at the you know it minutely the phrase no rest period claims business expenses do not appear in the complaint i mean there's no dispute about that and i don't mean to suggest that  that's why why is it more like cox a co ax well i think that it's not like toxic towards in that it deals with the employee being compensated in that case for expenses look i am i going  upon the same identical factual predicate and if it is potentially available and that language is used at the officers for justice case that's six maybe if one is potentially  that has any relevance or makes any sense in this context well i think i think the courts or the are talking about it being potentially available from the identical factual predicate another where you know they were driving the trucks and they got sick from seeping fuel exhaust fumes exhaust fumes leaked into the the money guided the exhaust fumes right up into the cab with the car something the difference between the claims about which nancy trust claim that had been brought concerning i think fees that were being charged were guarding the use of credit cards and the issue was whether somebody could bring  essentially the credit cards in gauging in similar violations that the fact that they weren't pled was not necessarily dispositive and limited the ability to include it in in a class similarly and this is a district court case the controversies lift case that we cited in our papers there was an additional two to declaim involving the lift drivers that was not remotely discussed in the book you know we don't really pay that much attention in these district court cases let me ask you just something more fundamentally i don't understand and please help me with this why the fact that if i have a lunch break claim there's a lawyer any case the does not plead the case does not plead the claim has a different claim no classes ever certified so i don't get any notice the lawyer gets paid my claim gets released i don't get a dime i didn't know about it i didn't have an opportunity to i didn't have notice or an opportunity to be heard before my claim was compromised i don't get why this isn't just the most kind of garden variety violation of due process well i think there's a couple of things that i would say to that first that the evidence in the record anything to do with how careful the lawyer was due process it is as we all know no dissent an opportunity to be heard so the fact that the lawyer studied some documents was included in that so i'm not sure that it's quite fair to say that the class members had absolutely no notice that they had noticed that some man who didn't represent me had compromised to different question is this entire matter capable of mediation well it was i mean if this goes back you've got a lawsuit on two fronts why wouldn't brinks want to resolve all of this globally well it might i certainly you represent brinks correct that's correct you do not represent the interests of the plaintiffs representing mr bellew right that's correct why wouldn't you want to resolve the entire thing well i mean that's certainly something are you willing to participate in mediation i think that the lord has some terrific employees of the court they have no outside connection who are fully capable of mediators have a way of clearing up the hearing canals so it's something to think about all right thank you for your thank you