of the the the the supreme court in that case indicated that one a plan to reject such an offer hope would the terms are and that his it was full student learns the recipient's rejection of an offer leaves the matter of if no other offer has been made and so they went out and that is to say that there could be some other situations that perhaps this would not have the same  amount of the luggage fee that placed a suit for in that case the airlines actually deposited that monny on the same credit card that passenger use who was a plaintiff in the case so in other words they charge a forty dollars or credit card so that's a big distinction and the united states supreme court discuss this in their comments and all the commentators discuss this as well they said that we need not and not we do not now decide whether the result would be different which seems to be a little bit of a different argument than saying well they they gave them the check you know just because stop payment to whatever they wanted to check the money wasn't in the account but it sounds like your focus is switch case so the focus still on the ten dollars for example if a defendant had access to direct deposit the somebodies account there would be a different situation if that you know amount of money went into chase bank and a direct deposit somehow you don't have the same argument is that right right that would be correct because a they could say argue that it's accepted offer of solid because in my own perfect access to that money here it wasn't like that again the it's that i mix up that offer and so that really has the chilling effect of chilling out of class actions bring to finance and the tribe or city which united says of course i know that's not right go back to my direct deposit example so the direct deposit goes in and what if the pathway the plate of so why i don't want a i don't i don't want to send it back you know talk to the bank and see what happens there three or four days after the cancel trip so you give somebody some money you give it back within three weeks just because a lawsuit was falling casaca and basis of they got the money back but your focus and what you think the focus for us t terms of the big big distinctions in berber is that they got the money and that was with just a few weeks after the transaction and there was no recent back and that was i think two weeks after being served the divine ends put that i like to follow a motion for judgment on the pleadings and your judgment for the forty dollars it was paid i want to set just faction of that forty dollars we paid it's not really clear in our roof was a fee shifting his for not perhaps it was a contract or consumer fraud case it was not clear whether or not it was fee shifting of their journey fees were an issue to be decided later in that particular case didn't berber find that even rejected offers to move the claim oh the or not when you file a motion for classification that is the litmus ties for the pick off situation and that's not always a good degree to slip this house and only get no again the the no they don't say carrying it on that particular motion and that's what actually happened in velour to do nothing with the case it was a placeholder or as we call it in the bell or decision to show motion and  you pending on where you follow that which county you might i get he's number for a while you might not accept your case and you can't follow your motion of the same time you're filing your initial lawsuit so you have the new problem  looking at the different factors and you should look at it and he's like he's analysis that's and in this particular case we had a situation where they've made an offer  about the issue of attorney's fees and so we have a situation that is the problem that you have the eyes of the offer the defendant is walking away in this case with not hanny money they still wrongly hayter charged by the clerk's office he sent the check back and the attorney they cash that check and so that's another distinction from this case here  discuss some of the problems of the offer by the defendant in this case when you look at and that was attached to their motion to dismiss the affidavit by mr griffin and the butler it also said that it discusses that we will  and so can you discuss a little bit the interplay between the supreme court's decision and as you say inconsistent position of this does that work i believe in that the score as analyze the issue of whether a ten moves a class action through the process of adequacy last patient and not country is correct so we should not be looking at a country with she essentially wants to do is would he get other people's claims and that of course is the definition of and sir here you have the situation where there was an incomplete offer and it wasn't accepted it was rejected and we have a way to continue to litigate of the how of this particular fine these are claims that are likely to occur in the future very much so so again the the as well so in terms of the discovery here the elder case this is a big leap pointed out that the words have the discretion and they should control their own doctor when you look at the transcript in this case the lower  meyerson indicated that she wants me to change insurer document and decide on discovery issues and she actually did the size and scope issues a matter of fact the reasons of him that she desired to washing to say let's limit this here and so she was input decide what is occurring when a defendant tenders a settlement i don't believe the way they had any discussions about contract bother and whether it's accepted or not is sufficient to trigger this idea that the defendant has appropriately resolved that the case and so therefore the case is moot neither one of