class treatment stock holders are in denial classification movement that has to do with the merits of class treatment stops hauling immediately but in denial that has nothing to do with the merits of construct meant and that is without prejudice is essentially a stage hughes because this court was soon going to resolve the merits of the plaintiff's claims and was going to simplify the case before him given the stay he denied a pending motion for conservation without prejudice to clear his docket under the government's absent class members wishing to protect their rights would have been forced to flood the district court with hundreds of duplicative protected lawsuits only to have those lawsuits immediately stay for heck's that is precisely the sort of mucus multipl at there was no ruling whatsoever on the motion for class certification in fact judge givens that are majority opinion says because no court ever denied the motion for class certification in the stanford action we affirm the district court's conclusion that the plaintiffs federal claims were timely filed that's what i see as the hol do recognize that judge given earlier in the opinion uses the phrase no court has definitively ruled on class certification i do not see her saying that because there was no ruling made clear what it meant by definitive ruling when it said other courts follow the same approach and allow a nd class action where there's been no determination regarding the validity of class treatment that also underscores that the court by a definitive ruling the court ramifications that the the motion for class certification has been denied and in messer was denied it was dismissed as moot but there was a i think a definitive ruling on class or certification it was dismissed as moot but you would allow tolling to continue even though there is a i think a definitive ruling dismissing it  throughout the appeal periods and therefore plaintiffs would have all sorts of time to file into individual actions down the road i'm not sure that's equitable and what we're looking at tolling is we're looking at it's an equitable equitable principle and what is fair and equitable under these circumstances i'm worried about the ramifications of allowing you know years and years of to find a tolling continue for roughly two and a half year period during which the sanford might have appealed an order compelling individual arbitration suggesting the time to use her appellate proceedings but even just looking at the policies underlying american  him equitability do you see do you care to respond to that particular aspect that the judge griffin races is that in is it do you think see him an avenue to treat it as an equitable or or properly equitable i think an equitable because the supreme court's recognized the absent class members are reasonably rely on the plaintiff and supreme court is that in order to promote the efficiency of a class actions we should encourage little more difficult for me to understand that with respect to the other plaintiffs honestly because i understand your position virtue controls but if we disagree on that point why would it reasonable for your plaintiff to rely on someone else who's there is no cause action to represent their interests i mean there's no class action anymore would it be a brighter lyin which is important in such limitations cases to just say once there's been a dismissal or denial on any grounds along the lines of course circuit there's no more toilet so our addition is that because the reasonably continue to rely on that case until there was further education of the class treatment is yours as are the key distinction is between whether there's been a who on the merits of class treatment suggesting that the case will not proceed as a class action or whether there is just  want to tell me why we should do civil governments rule would frequently deprive courts and parties of the efficiency gains across act so under the government's role if plaintiffs file a motion for classification and fail to indicate compliance with a good morning your honor janie lilly for the social security administration plaintiffs seek to revive claims that were filed years late on the basis that they can tack on to their towing period the hughes class action but even under their proposed rule under which some denials are actual denials and other denials are not for towing purposes  denial in the hughes case stripped that case of its class character they are judge the parse the exact issue that the only common issue to the putative class and that case will soon be are considered have nothing to do with the merits or administrative versus denials on the merits that the decision in hughes definitively ended the class character of that suit at that point and extending out a lot of the doesn't make any sense i mean practically to require the plaintiffs to file individual actions at that point when the there's another action here hicks that is pending that will presumably decide this and that this action is not really dismissed or that the underlining action that is really just puts all punitive class members on notice that it's time to bend to kate their individual rights that they didn't do so once there are agencies decision became final that the the rule that a classification denial in this what he's doing he's he's stay in the case the case is state and i'm not sure he had to deny the classification but i think it's clear that it's for administrative purposes rather than anything else you know that motion been put on hold basically if i may respond your honor with two points st it is clear that judge the part did both it stayed the the individual case but clearly denied class certification and did so because the pending hicks case would resolve the common issue presented by the putative class action either pro or con and there would no longer be a common issue to the honor the the reasoning of the order addressed mainly the state factors that did say that the exact issue that plaintiffs want decided will be decided soon and that that case will have the effect th plaintiffs complete continue to piggyback on that hicks case yes your honor at that point you can file if you are untimely at the you know at the point that this class certification was denied then you make piggyback on it only if you maintain your individual rights by intervening or filing individual actions but your honor the fact that there may be further proceedings or a new class certification motions has been a statutes of limitation it makes sense to have bright line rolls here the judge said deny so it's a deny how do you get around virtue or even if i were attracted to that rule i don't know that i'm at liberty to adopt that rule because of virtue because they get how to get around your honor they are the court was disgusting successive class actions and here  but but what does that matter i mean i understand that's a distinction but i'm not sure quite sinks in with what your honor they are of the the courts discussion is about whether after a determination on whether class treatment was appropriate the court could consider a nd attempt at that to circumvent the st rule that's not what was that issue here with respect to the issue we're discussing about the validity of ending tolling at the end case was dismissed as moot i mean i guess that's not administrative but it's also not on the merits of rule twenty three dollars right it's not a determination that class that there is not commonality of class claims had been restored by virtue of a successful appeal of the movements right so in that sense it restored those those class claims and nothing of the sort there's the no class certification that's what the court was referring to and so tolling was appropriate there here there is simply no basis for using the virtual case to require the court to parse the reasons for the denial of classification in some cases if not others plaintiff's reading of of of the single adverb too important entire doctrine and dichotomy between denial on the merits or for some other reason is strained at the very best i'm not sure i agree but ok your honor there was no administrative denial in that case  the denial that plaintiffs referred to was simply not at was not part of the discussion in virtue but even if it were it it was a case where the where the denial was reversed on appeal and we simply don't have that here so that's true that the denial was reversed on appeal but but that then depends on the notion that the that plaintiffs once there's been an actual dismissal can take advantage of tolling but only if the individual plaintiffs appeal is successful if it's not successful then they can't so i guess you should go out and file these duplicative actions and then if it turns out that you win on appeal that the individual plaintiff won on appeal then you wasted your time they lost on appeal well then i mean that's no more there's no more action presumably but i guess i don't understand why the merits of the individual appeal determine the tolling question that just seems your in your honor the merits of the appeal may determine the tolling period if there is a successful appeal on the denial of class or vacation that is the class character has been restored and in that sense what happens is that the the class claims relate back under a a different doctrine to the national filing of the of the class claim but what you're saying is what there's a dismissal if you're a plaintiff since you don't know whether or not if you're a plaintiff you could have been a member of the class you better got action right now because if that other plaintive has a bad lawyer so they don't make the right arguments they lose on appeal you've lost your claim because you won't tell exactly your honor that reliance on the hypothetical poor lawyer or the bad putative named plaintiff is not reasonable at that point and as the th circuit has explained in armstrong reliance on the possibility of revived class at some point or the possibility of reversal on appeal is is simply not reasonable and therefore the only sensible approach is to seek to vindicate your individual rights at that point we just simply don't know what may happen after the denial class or vacation even in this case it was true that one of the named plaintiffs and hughes declined to proceed as a putative named class member after hicks and so plaintiffs who chose not to file timely suits at the outset and are now seeking to extend their tolling period and rely on these putative class actions should diligently pursue their individual cases at that encouraging absent cost members to take action if they wish to protect their rights and that's because although i decision denying past certification on the merits can be revisited by the district court or could be reversed on appeal the decision suggests that it's unlikely that he  proceed as a class action i also like to know that if the court reporter ultimately disagree with the plaintiffs on any of these applications of american high tolling andrus establishes that equitable tolling in the circumstances would be warranted and if it has no further questions we would ask that you hold the point of sausage timely and hurst the district courts dismissal orders ready for the questions no further questions and the case will be submitted thank you for your argument