like mr carro three that they cannot quote act as a private attorney general in court or arbitration and also they cannot join or consolidate claims both involving any other person and these are found at section five  agreement perspective these provisions are so important to money online that it hatched with parties a come to call it a poison pill provision which says that if either of them are ever being done in forceful in the arbitration agreement wi and they're the california supreme court says that quote in a public injunction action a plaintiff acts in the purest sense as a private attorney general a court saying this is the purest embodiment of the concepts and we  said that an individual proceeding under the u c l can obtain relief on behalf of the general public but then because of the particular limitations on prop sixty four dollars constraints on the u c l it went out of its way to say that it was not being brought on behalf of the general public the suit and was not and infringing on the attorney general's exclusive authority to do that and was not very presenting others so that seems to suggest that there is a species relief that is not being brought in a private attorney general passed city you can bring an individual she and she takes the relief on behalf of the general public but is not representative of the general public so why isn't that the existence of that type of  something that survives the bar on private every government here if so i'll push back on terms of your question of it your honor that type of action is the classic private attorney general action a private attorney general actually doesn't need to be brought in a representative capacity it doesn't need to get you who brings a private attorney general action doesn't borrow injury from the government or they are a look at large and represents in the sense that they're bringing  government's claim or bringing a claim that belongs to the general public they're bringing suit over their own injury in fact and that's precisely how you know the concept has been characterized throughout  act that is a private attorney general actually your honor and we know that's true under california law because when cruz characterizes a public conjuncture plaintiff as a private attorney general in the purest suffers any damage as a result of violation can bring an action including a public injunction and so you know that's not a representative proceeding that's a proceeding that's designed to benefit of like but it's not brought necessarily in the public's name but nonetheless it's characterized by the california supreme court as a private attorney general action in the purest sense only then if we find this question about whether or not that that money i am relies on doesn't even use the phrase private attorney general that it appears nowhere in that forbidding talk about the conduct of certain private attorneys who are abusing the use yells them limitless standing provision we know historical record who these people were there particular attorneys who were doing things like trawling the internet for travel agents who didn't put their business license up and then suing them out of e c l under some made up zimmer protection  organization that they just invented for the purpose of shakedown suits so this isn't the you know broader concept of the private attorney general as the private and for sure of public rights that you know is used in as we  know literally thousands of judicial and ins over the past sixty years these are discrete bad acting attorneys and you know it was processed before as a reform directed at their conduct conduct not something that changed  private attorney general actions forever and we know this because california courts have been you to characterize u c l as a private attorney general action proposition sixty four point to one case would the parties be expecting him to contract around some exotic species of u c l claim that doesn't exist you know didn't exist after two thousand for  prior claim it would make any sense that in a consumer facing financial services contract which is what this is at the parties would be making agreements in allowances for you know what employment claims that they  quote involving other and any other person so this is a you know credibly brought her to describe the relationship between the claim that's riveted and you know its relationship to others it would have been sufficient if  might many minds objective here was just to prevent a party join her or bring claims on behalf of others in a representative capacity to say something like you may not bring the claims of others or claims belonging to others but they want to step that the operative verb be joining her consolidate hugh can join or consolidate a claim involving you with claims involving other persons e g just that there is a distinction between claims involving you and claims involving the other person and that she gestured can be read to mean the claims of other persons and their god when you're not joining in with something else and that that would seem to go on the other side of the line you just threw your on there would be two types of join or potentially in credit want to be party joined when you're bringing up claims belonging to another party and bringing the party another person it's your claim but it necessarily involves other other persons and this is a consequence of the definition of public in joke to release it must as a definitional matter be primarily benefiting other other persons it involving public injunctive really doesn't seem to do that that's my question i'm not sure i quite understand it so i mean you're saying that they by using the word involving any other person they went beyond just saying you know you're representing your claims and the claims of a purse this is is different from the happy as it says involving and has a broader reach right so be the way mcgill formulates the public injunction is that you have standing as a result d of your private and so you can bring a suit over your private and your and then in connection with that action lawyer this case is pretty simple to me i think that the plane of the greed arbitrary claims and the district court order compelling arbitration should be affirmed we start with the undisputed facts because it's always to see what the good to see what the parties agree there's no dispute that the point of sign an arbitration agreement there is no dispute that the claims that plaint asserting in its action fall within the definition of claims that they are allowed to arbitrate that includes claims or injunctive relief that is expressively spelled out and in fact the arbiter is expressed we authorized and offloaded to war all remedies available in an individual lawsuit including injunctive relief and that sort of with i do not but it is irrelevant to my feel urged to give the appeal because the district court did not deal with that issue i do not think there but but that i can talk about that later i don't view this as being public and jump to believe that that's really what they were all out for if that was the real remedy they were seeking they would have compelled arbitration the point here is mcgill which they're citing themselves express general action and therefore the bar near the point your response to that i respectfully say that you are just dead wrong miguel obviously is the most recent decision he's going back to broughton crude those are all mcgill was decided in fifteen years after those cases i will quote the language in the mcgill because i think it's important for the court to hear i will actually quot that that literally obliterates their argument based on five d and it's on page nine hundred and fifty nine of the mcgill decision and that language says we conclude that these provisions do not preclude a private individual who has suffered injury in fact and has lost money or property as a result of a violation of the u c l or the false advertising law and who therefore has standing to file a private action from requesting public injunctive relief in connection with that action the court then goes on to say a person who meets these requirements is filing a lawsuit or action on his or her own that i am not on behalf of the general public if they are given is that up that acting as a public and as a private attorney general clear that an individual has the right to seek a public injunction in an individual action you don't have to certify a class you don't have to be a private attorney general that title is an important to the relief that you are entitled to see what we're really ending up with years does he wants a title and because he says i have that title and i want that title i should be allowed to get rid of what we had read to we agreed that i could seek an injunction that's a bill when an individual action features one yourself your are you raise which is the idea that under the f a a any presumption it is to be drawn in favor of arbitration not against it we're not trying to interpret this to avoid arbitration we're supposed to interpret it to fine in and force the arbitration off here mcgill allows what they're entitle to do we should do it the nd problem i have with it is if the corps were to say no i think you know that this arbitration ends to be conducted by a private attorney general the judge believes point that there is no case that has ever held that as a matter of law there's a will there where they use loose language but there is no case that has ever said you must now repeat it there is no case that says you must after the private attorney general to bring these planes or to bring in seek a public injunction that resolves the preemption argument under the through because if you think about it this contract gives this individual the right to see a public injunction so does beloff under mcgill the more recent case on california supreme going to say that you really have to be a private attorney general would clearly fall under the preemption and there there's in your back two years here argument about me given the language if you wrote that there is any better that talks about the right to join or consolidated claims involving you with claims involving any other person i think we generally as lawyers know what a jointer is we deal with or in the civil procedure or we deal with consolidation of planes in the civil procedure all this is neither seeking public injunction does not constitute the pursuit of planes such relief and they're talking about public injunction does not constitute the pursuit of claims on behalf of others there is nothing no court again that is actually address the issue other than macgill you have loose language i agree you'll have dicta out there all over the place but in terms of a court that's actually looked at mcgill looked at and said when you're seeking a public injunction you're not doing that on behalf of others and that is important here because again to disregard that would run exactly ball of the same provisions i mentioned before you have a provision that you're supposed to be interpreting this broadly in favor of arbitration as well as the  there was also some comments made about the fact that you know we don't have anything in our greaves other than pada and some references to other cases or boards with shit i guess that dealt with an issue of private attorney general i am not an expert on the law of all fifty states i'm a fellow homeowner lawyer practice thirty five years in southern california that's the why there are fifty glorious states out there i california or any one of our other fifty states forty nine states is going to do in the future with regard to creating some rights of some individual as a private attorney general the fact that language i contract that would prohibit such a claim if one ever arose doesn't have to be given meaning in this case in order for you know the board to rule it is a simple contractual provision which has no binding effect here because quite frankly we are looking at an individual case by one individual who is seeking relief including public injunctive relief of the loss pacifically allows for them to obtain in an individual action and really nothing more should be necessary that was what the district court said and it said it several times on pages four dollars and six dollars of its ruling it cited back to mcgill in the fact that you have the right to do this as an individual in the contract gives you the right to change it as an individual there is no basis therefore i would argue feature of the case everyone seems to agree being in agreement that this case is controlled by california law that there is language in the contract says it is governed by utah law it's  wish that that it says you were talking about california you are absolutely correct your honor it does talk about you call off the claims that they are certain here are california based planes and therefore the remedies that are available would be determined by california law on it fell for your claim and that's why we've been so i think both sides would say that's why we've been arguing about mcgill and some of these other decisions because clearly  run crews together formulate a rule that claims for public injunctive relief or not archibald and that was the case because they are private attorney general actions in the words of those cases authentically bonafide private attorney general actions and in the purest sense now the brought in crews rule as since been ruled preempted by the f a a but that has nothing to do with their characterizations of public injunctions particular ones particularly ones a nd point i would emphasize that not you know we point out in our brief that this term has been used in literally thousands of judicial indians not just in other states but also in federal law and whenever it's used is used describe what against who would emphasize that money lying or the district court have pointed you to a single case that says private attorney general is soley a matter of capacity if you bring claims that belong to the public or the government or to you or is it sufficient that you bring individual claims that benefit the california supreme court and the clear consensus of courts who have used that term across the country is that you can bring a private individual suit and act as a private attorney general in the case of public