rule is even if assuming the need to be a separate judgment that if there is not a separate judgment the thirty day period to appeal begins one hundred and fifty days later by rolling the fifty eight b to b and i think you concede that if didn't do exactly that which the court also research allowed the plaintiffs to come back if we determined that the refunds that were made or reopen it if x y and z happens you're saying that that indefinitely tolls the time to appeal i don't i'm not saying definitely jeff not that i'm saying certainly it tolls the time until the cor complaint was never dismissed the motion for summary judgment by the plaintiffs was denied but a motion in favor of the state was never was never granted they never i don't know if they i mean there was no motive there was no decision no judgment because there was no decision that enter judgment as a motion to dismiss the complaint would have had the judge done it the defense never moved to have a case dismissed that's exactly right so as far as i can tell if there's no if the case was never dismissed and the judge i kept as he says here are the most plaintiffs motion for summary judgment is denied without prejudice to a new rule in the event that there's an effort to reduce reintroduce agency fees and to the extent the plaintiffs have not been adequately reimbursed for past agencies service already imposed so that there can be a renewal under those circumstances and then the clerk was respectful he directed to administratively close the case and we have held i believe that in ministry of closure is not a is it has nothing to do with the merits has nothing to do with the disposition of the actual case that there has to be a judgment and there has to be and it may or may not be a separate on a separate piece of paper which can affect the timing of the of the appeal but what hear oh that if that's the case if the case is still going there there really wouldn't be an appeal from here because there's been no final judgment so we wouldn't have jurisdiction for that or i'm not sure that's true j waive the are not the final judge rule can be waived by the defense i believe under the circuit's decision if they don't raise the issue on the appeal they do not raise the argument that was time that's that's a separate war that was made a year later and to that and to the extent that that award is is a and few words can be made during the middle of litigation or you could have be covered in the midst of it so we would have i would think we would have jurisdiction to examine that question and to the extent that that question depended upon the findings in and if they haven't been adequately reimbursed for past agency fees i'm here you can walk in i'll change it now that sense to me like it's more in the nature of almost a consent decree or something of that sort i mean it's it's ongoing jurisdiction the practice which it had had abandoned and that the plaintiffs argue that the case is not and should not be dismissed l b without prejudice but the court represent any kind of a final ruling in the case i don't understand why i don't believe that the fact that the court allowed the plaintiffs to return to say that they hadn't received what they were entitled to affects whether the case had effectively been then closed because the same would be true if the court granted a final injunction if the court granted a final junction that would be a judgment in the and that would end the case even though the plaintiffs are entitled to come back and point out to the court at the performance of what has been enjoined has not been properly done by the defendants that wouldn't make the judgment not final so i've not i'm not sure where i would would come out after hearing what judge walker says but my impression was that the court had granted a motion which i thought was for s defendants of even the statements of the public officials that form the basis for the decision to judge holmes decision we my clients have not yet received the refunds that were issued by the connecticut state police you indeed what the situation was was that shortly after janice was decided ju specifically states that the refunds were calculated with interest at a rate agreed to in the settlement negotiations now this is something we didn't know at oral argument because we didn't basically in terms of settlement to the one the refund and the rate of interest to be paid on the refund i believe connecticut law allows up to ten percent interest on a prejudgment interest we agreed to four and a half percent that's how the and that's how the union subsequently calculated the interest on the refunds it provided we also had a six substantial dispute on the issue of attorneys fees not the entitlement i would to the parties from related from judge bolton that he would have no compunction about and i'm not that's not the exact language about adjudicating the amount of the attorney's fees the presumption was always that plaintiffs palance were prevailing parties offers were made counteroffers were proposed and we could not reach report on amount on amount only and that's where summary judgment because we hadn't received the refunds as of the date me file that motion and that is and we believe that that's clear on the record so i would like to just turn understanding that i'm well count my time ju the bottom line is i think on the buchanan you need that some type of decision by the court or some type of court supervision of what was agre