would be class representative who commences suit after the expiration of his own limitations period can hardly qualify as diligent her interest in or his or her interest in representing the class as therefore if they did not do so they warrant quote unquote diligence obviously is as you know i just said dr white snow having brought forth the privacy action as a nameplate of an obviously one cannot say he was not diligent he obviously was diligent as far as an argument is concerned now as far as the broader question i think i did should he be allowed to bring a follow on class action having been a named plaintive there by relied upon it wasn't just an afterthought clearly relied upon the fact that the statute at issue there the p s l are a week wired notice not a not even a class sort of occasion but of the commencement of a putative class action that wasn't the case here notice was given that wasn't the case here and therefore the plaintiffs had the putative class members rather had notice they had they had the ability to make an informed decision as to whether to act or how act completely different as just look what is the legal policy underlying american part it's the legal pulse there are several but one of them and relevant part here one of them is to generally for the purposes of class actions in the first place which is to allow the official yelling of numerous claims which typically not could be said about any class action because prohibition see is at the heart of the legal policy under lying not just class actions but all forms of bag ation but let's get beyond that what's the specific purpose of american pipe because it is about tolling who's being protected by virtue of the american marriage i think in a certain respect it would be the putative class members international and obviously we're not claiming that dr white and those plays that out there probably indeterminate at least in the in the large class action by by a large i mean an expansive definition that would be inclusive of many people in that instance those folks may well have no knowledge whatsoever that a class that that a class action has been filed which may have important implications for specific rights of their right but of course we don't want race statute moves on your out of court right but i think i think the underlying concern on the motive if you will of american pipe towing is for those class members because your point is well taken lots of class members have no idea that there's an action in which their rights are seeking to be represented but for those who do the and this is really the key american pie is that the the system the judicial system for  putative class member the time the peak the p c was a putative class member and again would would the judicial system be better off if the p c had because it couldn't have its claims be told what a separate action it which again they might have been consolidated as a practical matter but the p c could have brought us a separate action but if it shouldn't it shouldn't be motivated to do so and i would i would sort of respond to the question with maybe a rhetorical question of my own which is c are really want which they're not but that's what the district court we sent which they're not in what respect they certainly both have the same notice identical entities or parties and asking you if each received notice in the same fish the fact that dr white's never received notice which we can't know when in dispute briefly the district court properly decided that the plaintiff's individual class claims were barred by the statute of limitations the american pie tolling doctrine makes it very clear that it isn't applicable to individual named plaintiffs therefore with respect to dr white's there and his individual claims in the second that action he was a mean plaintiffs in the potato class action i'll then lackawanna county therefore he's out the district court decided that and properly so that the statute of limitations barred his claim there was no tolling because american pie polling applies only with respect to those individuals know again american pie tolling was create was was for him to create a limited exception to the application of the statue of limitations with respect to unnamed absent class members equitable darker and that was equitable doctrine it was not intended to give serial plaintiffs an opportunity to revive and recessed at the time barred claims and that's exactly what's being tried here by d or the district court did a very reason the now yes and pointed out again dr white sphere was the sole shareholder of that p c there were no assets no employees no business you know the plaintiffs  have strained to explain away dr white steers unequivocal testimony that he and the p c are the same this has nothing to do with the analysis of a separate legal entity this has to do with the interchangeably and in fact the parties did not pursue nor did the district who  question of piercing the corporate veil here that's correct i mean it it really proceeded on equitable grounds and that is because that's the doctrine of american it was designed to allow unnamed receive notice and that not be notice to the p c there were the same and so they're trying to say that american pie tolling applies and it would be it would be an on reasonable extension and strain of the application of the american pie equitable doctrine to allow dr white stor to toll his own statue of limitations in as a potato in the potato class action lackawanna county just to protect his solely o c it's clear that in this case the same faxes are involved and again the ownership interests of dr whites are in the p c are very clear so with respect to the individual claims of dr white suing the p c we believe that the district court was correct in its analysis and as a holding regarding the class claims china agra tech has made it very clear and the supreme court has adopted a no to blanket policy as it has been described of no tolling of class claims period it so youngers is owed again on a lot of what are respectfully around or yes it is as you've characterized it and in our view a dead letter those class claims are gann and and that's consistent though the the the determination by the district court in this case that the class claims were barred really was consistent with the earlier opinions of this court regarding an analysis of whether again a plaintiff in an earlier class action could bring a subsequent attack and class claim they could not that's the lacy case that this court has followed so  it's our position that the court was was correct that there is very clear under the in application of american pie tolling the claims are barred and from an individual basis and china a those class claims by the supreme court's recent decision there is one other action that the district court took that does take it up on appeal that is the they granted in part our motion to strike the plaintiff's answer to our that in the application the rule grew fifty fifty six point one and really fifty one what standard of review should we apply to that because it seems to me this caught my attention actually later on in my review of this case i'm not sure that this court has ever explicitly declared what the standard of review should be when reviewing a district excuse me to the principles regarding the standard of review in the case where motion for summary judgment has been granted it appears that the court may have power there will certainly with respect to to a summary judgment rule but leading up to that there had to be a determination as to what the local yesterday and then an application of yet that understanding of the local to what it actually entered and that's why you know it we would believe around that in the case of the court's action on the fence motion to strike it is abuse of discretion so for these reasons your honor in the last night in our brief we believe that the order of the district court should be affirmed for any further questions i'd be happy to respond to the best of my bill formulation whether or not those facts should preclude the court from finding that the plaintive knew that the clock was ticking and didn't act within the term required in the law to act and therefore the state to agree and it wasn't to that's a different way to formulate in that we're not really involved with the substance of great recovery perceval but we're going to someone had sufficient notice to cause them the act in which they happen the failure of that person's actions that well and again again just turning back to the your only argument as far which in this doc tells into that as far as who received notice and again legally did the p c receive notice no it didn't factually speaking you could certainly say  to doctor to go to a doctor whites there's own knowledge as the sole shareholder and the person who says the company is me the corporation is me again he said that the way out  keep saying that yes but at the same kind fail to answer why the p c does not have notice because dr wexford i said i said lee legally it didn't have known it legally because notices weren't sent that was the whole point or a very key point i should say in china actually tech in which the court said that under the statute formal notice what formal notice are not just i happen to not that this is actually not an issue before this court or an issue in this appeal but  something that i certainly will indicate to you i dispute and that is the sense that is the notion that because a putative class member did not receive a formal notice in that whatever reason a glitch whatever it is that the formal notices that the p s l are very required to be said when not sent ok and now some classrooms came forward cetera et cetera i think the result will be very different in china  and number two i don't think it would make a difference whether whether the putative quest number who did not receive the formal notice test the part or are conceded if you will that i happen to read about in a newspaper or heard about it through a friend