people at the trial level they're risking their careers and their own personal funds to push forward on this appeal having said that we are the women on ludes on gre twenty three with regard to what had to be the class notice the purposes of the alerting class members about the fairness of the queue and number two was the trial court required to comply with this court's instructions and mandatory instructions that the court conduct critical analysis and heightened scrutiny  do with the injunction and so my question is are you complaining about the injunctive relief i'm complaining about both your honor because the trial judge specifically precluded my client from objecting but what what now describe as money is there any part of the injunctive part of the relief other than dollars which are objecting to well our clients eight of them no longer i'm sorry seven of them no longer work  sequence of what's actually happened in the world st your clients had a choice whether to opt out of the b three relief or not they chose to opt out as i said the sequence opt out and then appeal is not one th works on your brand name prescription drugs that's not the if you think the district judge made a mistake you state and complained and people we did say yes we are class members we are class members and there is forces howell does the trial court comply with the law if the trial court want to allow us to do what we have a right to do under twenty three dollars because i don't see that you have any right made a record where the court would see the the harm to our clients the financial harm to our clients this even rates the ability to make a record which twenty three was ok doesn't mean you have to stay and if you there is a rule that trial court to reach open after the fairness hearing but because we couldn't object we can never be allowed celsus a judge to reopen the class it seems to me  they've done that they have every right to pursue their claims for monetary relief individually but as opt outs they have no right and no standing to appeal the district court's approval of the monetary settlement from which they've excluded themselves and in addition in fact and so in the context of an appeal that requirement demands that opponents must demonstrate they suffered some adverse effect from the district court's judgment as a result those who opt out of a class  cannot appeal the district court's order approving the class seven that's going to be recognized repeatedly and that makes perfect sense because when live against opt out of a settlement they're not bound by them so they can't be injured by the court's approval of it devilment made clear that the power to appeal is limited to those non named class members who have objected during the fairness hearing there's no dispute here that appellant did not object during the fairness hearing and so they this way he said i do your honor and i hope i can kind of clarify what seems to be a misunderstanding we're not asking for the opt outs to be able to object to the class settlement obviously the class notice said you had to be a class member who did not opt out in about the b two really because there are members of that class exemption and opt out and which is also why they have as much standing as they can you the only question is whether they're  judge said you opted out you are i'm not hearing you well i think it was maybe that they don't have any objections to the b two really that's what i was pursuing but the district judge certainly said if you opt out of the monetary relief stand they are members of the class they're entitled to object to the portions of the relief that injure them or aren't favorable to them the problem as as i say that is that they're not doing i think that's exactly right so i think we would search the record in vain in the district court and in the appellate review for any objection they may even claim they wanted to raise before the district court regarding the injunctive relief every issue they raise has to do because i believe judge shot gave them the opportunity to raise any points any objections and even if they thought the the direction of the class notice that you know you can't opt out an object was wrong i think they are not a geisha to raise to raise that is before the district court and i don't think they can come before this court and complain about issues weren't addressed to the district court in the st instance when they  to opt out in object was a misunderstanding on our part so i think that's a clear waiver in addition to what i think is a very clear case of lack of standards because they're not complaining about any issue that actually  we already represent eight of them and that was the end of the discussion about the up doubts rule and continuing role in the litigation so instead of appearing before the court and making an effort to challenge the provisions that they felt were not fair if they were not allowed to object they chose to try to become a subclass so that their claims could be heard before the same judge and conceivably avoid the right patrician agreement percent plus and really only eight people and additional three people who opted out the there's a reason why rule twenty three dollars b three classes allow for opt outs and that's precisely where the parties believe that they would do a better job litigating their claims on their own these class members made their choice they made the choice to try to opt out of the class become a subclass of the big day in federal court and litigate their claims with the hope of recovering seven million dollars if their claims are catastrophic claims they belong outside of the claims if they feel that they are valued properly seven million dollars we wish them luck in accomplishing that goal but there was nothing wrong about this class action and also want to defend the district court judge in the way that the case was handled there is one factor that has not been discussed and that is what was the posture of the case when it came before the just for the posture of the case is that there are very likely would not have been a class action reviewing the evidence and they were present for the proceedings so we believe and it's correct that that having made a decision after out of the class action the proper course is to allow the people who want to participate in class action to receive the benefit of the deal that they chose to speak to the exchange about the damages model either the raw data or the methodology how much do you believe should have been and what's the there was the damages then the court could look at that number and the court could determine what percentage had been compromised in their claim the court could also and in that kind of case presuming that the checks were being distributed to each person you know and on a formulaic basis and none was being reverted would actually know what the compromise was in this case that couldn't be further from what occurred at the debate at the mediation of the debate in these racial discrimination cases often is their wage disparity and if so what percentage of the wage spirity should be attributed to the practices that are challenged or to racial discrimination so in this case the judge in order to have it be able to comprehend what was at stake in the case and what was being than they thought they were and there were benchmarks and other ways to get information that the court felt comfortable satisfied this inquiry the court look to cases that were presented by the  and in addition there were other and indicators in the record with respect to the value of these claims which were a number of cases that that some found that in the category of copycat cases other cases our cases that had been prosecuted all of dollars and also the data that ultimately came out showed that again it was at the top in terms of resolution for racial discrimination class actions the court also had its own experience to understand how often summary judgment is granted in these explain and the guidelines that have been issued are pounded by the people who participate in that process is that the court should look at the settlement and st ask the question are there concerns about collusion are the red flags to the settlement the court or the court to want to delve deeper this was not a reverse auction case this was not a case where there were coupons that were given there was real money given occur pat pat capita basis of about seventy thousand dollars per class member that's one hundred percent turnout which are individual eyes and therefore it made sense to a process that would allow people to have a right to appear in front of a neutral right to represent their own claims and their own valuation stand damages and the court appreciated the thought that went into that which also negated the idea that maybe the lawyers just wanted a quick fee because a lawyer so committed after the fee had been paid to continue to work on the case for a year and a prosecutor claims it came through on behalf of the of monetary value with nothing in the record to support it when our clients chose just saying we're not going to participate in this monetary portion no financial information was provided to the class no financial