originally filed in state court in denver and it was removed by the fed it b c p with the consent of defendant nobles to federal court  i thought there was nothing in the record showing it was like three hundred and fifty dollars was the maximum so no yes yes yes hearts that came later of course as a result of discovery but that's that's ultimately  colorado law and so they and then they wanted to state farm to have an obligation to give notice to the insureds of the element of diminished value coverage to evaluate all players to determine if it to mean value coverage is owed and it's so that then what this court ultimately decided is even asked that each plaintiff that the cost to comply with that was was greater than seventy five thousand dollars because the only issue here is whether royalties were paid properly in the past that's correct and it's not like they have to change any way of doing business they just have to compute how much is that right that's right now i'm out of a program to get a different answer from police so yeah i mean that's definitely a case in fact that period of time in this case that's related issue well what would be an instance where it wouldn't be aggregating and we could get past the seventy five thousand dollars for an individual plaintiff well i sometimes well i think  policyholders and and do all sorts of other things that were sort of equitable really in this case by contrast what phelps has asked with respect to his playing for declared for relates just relates to it parallels to his claim for money damages and in the sense that you know he wants a declaration that the world you saw to be paid in a certain way but that parallels to his breach of contract law and so you know the departure re exceeded the seventy five thousand dollars and so if the court does not have any other questions i will would like to move fairly quickly through the other two points recognizing that our position is on the subject matter jurisdiction but i'd noble had breached its royalty payment obligations phelps because it had failed to pay based upon fifty percent of the sale proceeds are actually retained by the c p a he as as well had provide complied with the fifty percent obligation and phelps presented substantial evidence contradicting that that in fact noble had not paid world the scope's based upon fifty percent of the amount of was retained by the c p instead it was a much lower amount basically arising from the various claims that were part of the two thousand and nine audit if you recall from the briggs and in resolving this issue the district court did not really about weight the evidence as it related to that issue and so as a result of that there was an order issued and it had it was a summary or a judgment order favor of noble but it had the effect of granting summary judgment in favor of noble on the fifty percent obligation which triggered our motion to reconsider what the trial court to clarify that lay the court did not address you know what we were raising in in that motion to reconsider so effectively what we are saying with respect to the fifty percent is a we presented substantial evidence demonstrating that noble failed to meet its obligation to pay the amount that the c p a actually retained but the court i think misunderstood the claim i'm not sure why but well i think when he messed with the fact that we were one of our clients was that noble to help pay based upon fifty percent of the amount of sale proceeds that that if he actually retained i think the court misunderstood the fifty percent obligation is different than the one hundred percent with the fifty percent obligation by its express terms is is required is noble to pay royalties to phelps and the other class members based on fifty percent of the amount of sale greater amount of sale proceeds then you know as a result of the audit and and and then it was paid on themselves was paid on phelps was paid on an amount of sale proceeds that was loss and and so if you had greater sales you had less loss or leakage so that the the resulting amount of the royalty would end up being the same as i understand you don't know if they may have understated how much they had sold but they but that's irrelevant because which is fifty percent of the total gas production less what was sold to consumers that noble got its royalty on i said that very poorly but i think that there was consideration provided that was independent of the increased production of revenues to noble and i would respectfully submit that's interactive contradiction to be to the watts decision no challenge to the decision on the merits in favor of d c p with respect to the claims made against the city so if there's jurisdiction then you would affirm the judgment as to d c which was entered by the district court so what is the issue in the jurisdictional sense in the diversity jurisdiction context the only issue raised by them is not diversity but the  thousand dollar minimum and we relied on the level of case the level case follow the brand name pharmaceuticals phase out of the seven circuit and we use the either or methodology that is looked to the value of the plaintiff of their client or the cost of compliance of declaratory action brought against the city it was the latter that we relied upon what's the cost of compliance for the dock actions sought by to i want to respond directly what mr barton said we are not aggregating the claims of multiple members of the class we looked at it from the standpoint of the relief sought by phelps alone and that relief sought by spelt so alone would aggregate two more the cost of us would cost millions of dollars for us to comply with the relief he sought and it's important to look at the nature of the klein the nature of the claim against y claim that phelps was a rd party beneficiary of contracts for the sale and purchase of natural gas between noble on the one hand and d c p the midstream purchaser of gas on the other that's what the claim was against us that we d c p had underpaid noble on the gas purchase contracts that we have with noble and each of those contracts covers many many wells and many many many roles the owners th as noble noble then has other obligations of its own to pay those royalty owners if you look at the cost that's what they were seeking the deck action in the case in the original complaint against us was that d c p should comply with its contract with noble so it's that cost of compliance that is it issues what would be the cost to do all the things they saw in the deck claire tory action suit what would be the cost to d c p of complying with those contracts  fractionation transportation cost reductions by changing ethane by changing vapor recovery all of those various things and there and what we did was to find out which of those contracts included wells in which phelps had some interest there were about a dozen of those and then at those wells we said there were five contracts out of the total of about one hundred and twenty dollars who are gas purchase contracts five of those contracts involve wells that ultimately downstream would result in royalties to phelps and in those five contracts we paid one hundred and thirteen million dollars to noble over about six years and those contracts are continuing  money i don't think so your honor i don't think so it ought you're not having to change your systems or anything judge phillips as to where for an example of a case where you would nag let them i think it will be useful to give an example where you would because it seems to be your aggregate there's a wonderful pinioned let me let me i think this will be helpful to everyone if there's a wonderful opinion by judge in the microsoft litigation in a microsoft or and twenty seven federal supplements that can it's seventy two and that case there was a claim against microsoft for any trust violation because you couldn't use your own word processor the microsoft system their the software or whatever would allow you to use your own word processor and the claim was that's and any trust violation microsoft's said if we have to change our system to satisfy one plaintiff it's go cost us tens of millions of dollars we can satisfy one plaintiff by just doing some little thing we have to change a big deal and so the cost to us is very large here what has happen is there are a lot of people life else who according to phelps or not properly paid their royalties and all you have to do is calculate for each person each royalty owner how much they would have to get and what you're doing you don't have to change your systems you have to make a computation and what you've done is added up all those computations and practice i don't see how it's different from somebody suing  a consumer suing a t m t and saying you're charging excessive interest on my bill i only get a one dollar fifty cents but you have ten million dollars or ten million dollars customers so a twenty said well if they win we're injunction but i don't see why i wouldn't apply to death or to a judgment the test we repeat is the cost to each defendant of an injunction running in favor of one dollar plaintiff otherwise the non aggregation will be violated and all the had no contract at all and no obligation to pay any royalties to anybody the only claim that was made against d c p by phelps was that that d c p was violating its contracts with noble and those contracts those specific contracts require a change of procedure if the deck action those contracts continue the roll to agreements between noble and the other folks continued as well all we the cost for us we couldn't just pay three hundred dollars to noble and then that three hundred gets sent on to somebody else we sent three hundred dollars to know well maybe one cent of it one tiny little cent of it would be the percentage that would ultimately go to t we're talking about the cost of compliance of a contract of five dollars contracts between d c p and noble and the only way to do that it's a common in the visible contract is to is to change the practices that they were seeking the deck as agreed that at this point your pain everything properly why that's not what that's not what he said when he found the original complaint and that's the basis on which you have to evaluate things at that and they were seeking to us change our practices going forward as well as in the past and with respect to the to our country act with noble not anything to do with the individual aggregation of claims by the class members that they may want to aggregate against though you're not ri prospect of increased future gas production in noble even valued that that potential future production to have a net present value of forty four million dollars and in fact increase production has even exceeded that and phelps has been paid royalties on all of that increased gas production not despite that brought this action and he wants more than that and so let me start with the fifty percent obligation claim and what the evidence was on that and judge hearts i thought you were explaining the relevant provision exactly right if you look to paragraph six of the hole in settlement which is the future or else the calculation that that what you can see is it was a trying to address any type of  and what it says the fundamental principle principle as noble is going to pay royalties on one hundred percent of anything that noble gets paid for and it's going to pay fifty percent on anything outs any other gas that comes out of its wellhead which you know has not paid it's going to pay royalties on fifty percent of that amount to its royalty on us and so the allegation here in the focus that the plaintiff is trying to put specifically on the retained of proceeds just doesn't matter we didn't need  wellhead so it knows what those volumes are and then it's getting a report of how much it's getting paid out and all it has to do to figure out how much to pay real design is to calculate the difference between those two things and i think  have an auto we have your audit and your audit declares you all as x one million dollars for some reason and what you're proposing right now would seem to undermine the whole basis of the audit you're saying  well i think that you have to separate knoebels relationship with the city from nobles relationship with the royalty owners and so you know when there is it's it's true that we have claims for those amounts against d c p we thought d c p should have been paying us more but when the plaintiffs are complaining that they weren't paid correctly on this fifty percent obligation which is stuff that we weren't paid on that's really not impacted by the our claims that d c p owed us more money it's a entirely separate point and when you look to the summary judgment record on those we put in evidence you know certainly of how the home and settlement the contract terms work in other words that it doesn't matter what does he says it's retaining we increased future gas production and we are paying royalties on that so we agree that that phelps is entitled to royalties on the consideration that we got from the settlement but the consideration that we got was increased future production and they are being paid royalties on that now they had a whole period of discovery to try to find any evidence that we got any other kind of benefit from d c p is investment in that infrastructure and they came up empty handed if there wasn't anything