lead that works what the district court did was it dismissed michael collins complaint based on the station locations it dismissed to be tainted classes claims without any stating any reasons why and after it ordered it said it was going to stay any decision on the motion for class certification it ruled on it anyway i'm outside of the ask the court either strike the motion for class certification without prejudice filed later because they didn't want the court ruling class certification until after it rule be one of the listed disclosures and to all the information disclose has to actually be used the panel change that in the subsequent panel changed that and said no it doesn't actually have to be used it can be if they just have to have a reason to basically state a permitted purpose for disclosing the information but that changed everything because that wasn't the standard that palatine moved for summary judgment after they moved under the on back court's decision head if we go back in the argument of course would be yeah the police chief listed all these reasons we didn't fight him in the senate case because it didn't matter because they didn't use the information and sent his case and we can go back and prove that actually what the police she said was wrong they don't use it for that information they never have we've got thousands of pages of documents that prove it never used it for the reasons that he said to you so we can actually beat it but we didn't fight that in summary judgment because it wasn't pertinent to the issue so i still think it's a very winnable case and i don't think the state's limitation runs on a case while still running and you follow a case with three days left in this actually patients and the district court rules against you the statute doesn't run you can still appeal i mean american deny class certification it didn't rule in motion for classification so i think in order for the flock to start the court cast at least ruling class certification and say yes this case may go forward as a class or it may not go forward class but that i think is what starts a clock and not the dismiss that this court has to rule within a day because it was only one day left in the statute let's crazy wouldn't do that and also be crazy for anybody to file a complaint after this court said are the district court said that the complaint didn't see a cause of action why would somebody come forward it would just sonny was only summary judgment against him it wasn't there was no no discussion of a class of that again sunny decision me not even a final judgment to begin with because the court didn't rule on the class claims and it didn't rule a motion for classification but i'm masako wasn't going to proceed on her appeal so weak donald picked up and said can i intervene for the purposes of taking an appeal and this court said yes and it reversed the class or the cation denial and then the supreme court then affirm this cour the court granted one way on behalf of the athlete you know the issues in this case are really well suited for a civil procedure case we were dealing with issues that are clear issues that have been well settled and quite frankly issues that really have no factual involvement there is no variation based on the specific facts of the case under american plate the rule in american pipe it's quite clear the filing case the complaint was filed eleven days before the statute of limitations had run and once the court declined to treat the calc that case further as a class action the supreme court was clear they had a loving days  intervene was that the functional equivalent in that case of having filed a separate point so the question here is quite simple does the statute of limitations resume when a class complaint is dismiss or does it stay paused hold until there is no possibility of further appeal we've exhausted way looked at the precedent this case every circuit including the seventh circuit h copper and i trust litigation is the case that we could find him seven circuits that's most directly on point you know if i when i read some of my opponents brief i believe that there is some confusion as to which portion of that case for citing because it was a consolidated appeal the analysis that's at issue is entirely contained on page seven ninety three of the opinion and judge wood writing on behalf of the united unanimous panel of the case hel quite clearly that the issue was whether the statute of limitations resumed on the dismissal with prejudice of the underlying class point and held that it did and further held that there was no entitle meant to tolling during the subsequent appeal now in this case and maybe we should just talk about the facts here mr collins received a parking ticket in two thousand and seven so we're talking about a decade and he gets a parking ticket years when he had nine months left on the statute of limitations another lawsuit was filed this is the seti versus filter pal type case so it is clear and we are not disputing in fact we agree under american pif the filing of senate class complaint told our paws the statute of limitations for mr cox however that tolling was extremely short lived by counsel says the district court judge now the only way that mr collins can avoid the statute of limitations i mean he has his statute of limitations even accounting for tolling expired in the summer of two thousand and eleven he filed this lawsuit in twenty six states the only possible way he can claim that he is entitled and that his claim is not time barred is if he was able to take advantage of tollway and from the moment that the senate complaint was filed until the moment that the u s supreme court refused to hear the case and i believe it was november of two thousand and fifteen mr collins has argued that he's entitled to take further advantage to you know short of having tolling from the beginning of sonny to the end there's simply no way that mr collins claim is going to pass on the statute of limitations thank you know some of the arguments that are being of advanced by the appellant that i'm not sure that i fully understand the exact nature of them for example there is some arguments that are being raised with regards to move miss and whether or not a claim was moot on appeal now as i understand it that the thrust of the argument is he's arguing about the way the district court judge terminated a motion for class a class certification and the district court judge in sending when it granted summary judgment said that the motion for class certification is terminated as moves now from that  mr murphy has been arguing that there's some argument that all of the claims of the class members are moot and he said tempting to compare his case to that of the weiss when you were a case in which  there we were dealing with the intervention of a class member on appeal due to the moving this of a claim on appeal but really what we're talking about is the movements of a motion not the movements of an individual's claim  the district court has never held that the claims of the class members themselves were moved by for two of grants in summary judgment simply held that their motion the motion for certification was now with regards going back to the statute of limitations argument this is not an issue for which there's much disagreement among the courts we've looked at the courts seventh circuit is clearly held on at least three to four regard to the roma santoso mcdonald case that was argued that mcdonald versus united airlines case going back where it stands for the proposition that a class member has leave to intervene to reply brief you know if you look at the case and if you read the case in footnote i believe it's footnote six of that opinion it makes it very clear that the court is not even applying the american pipe analysis and says we're relying on a different body of case law with three large river with regards to the tolling aspect so what's the court has any questions for the reason is that we whether a state case filed under state law told the statistician limitations of federal subsequent federal case in federal or what's your view when told in tolling i believe the tolling ends when the preserve my my place in line here i don't want this case to go away well then the worse the promotion of economy inefficiencies there is no again i'd challenge you to look for one case that he cited that supports this proposition where they had already rule