steel tubing could fail it struck by lightning and standing was found in our case two hundred and twenty thousand a t v s with an inherent he were so bucklers they violated three the court literally said i struggle on this issue of metaphors the fact is that the birth order is the heat well the defect is the heat injury is the overpayment and the court found an overpayment just mind also the same witness who said my a t v didn't belt that was the director of engineering robyn stroup he also told the board of directors the year before that testimony about all the v s being too hot and if you look in your addendum at pages nine thousand six hundred and ninety seven dollars you'll see his letter the board and i dare not say more on that because it's under seal because to this day polaris does not want to share what it knows exactly about these single one exceeded their own temperature standards that is the defect and if that defect was disclosed they would have had to charged about eight percent less that is the injury that is the overpayment which one hundred percent of the purchasers of these a suffered and the court found that in summary judgment the court used the damage model we had for the class with the name representatives but when the court trying to address it to the absent class members it kind of went off the rails it went into this area of what's the defect did everybody suffer the defect how do i define the defect and the court redefined it in a way that said everyone necessarily must have burns melting or discomfort and that contr also had melting burns discomfort the basic problem here is oatmeal getting infected to this standing analysis because o'neill is not a stand in case the words article three standing do not appear neil it was a motion to dismiss the name plaintiffs a bought a crib it had separated luckily their grandson had been injured by that and the court said basically no harm no foul you are no injury class you can't go forward under minnesota law two years later in cern in a case that was a class case like this where the question was standing like now the plaintiff had experts to show that there was an inherent defect the court went the other way the court decided that that was enough you do not need to see external damage if you do not need to see the leaking as as an urn it's not clear why you see melting here and again like insert we actually had recalls we had defendants acknowledging a defect and trying to fix it both through his recall service advisory there's a c p s investigation and then it resolved so there is it the core error here in going into this long merits review redefine the defect and basically then picking a winner and that same review also violated rule twenty three dollars b three in getting into the whether or not there was a design and in fact lower those temperatures specifications from where they had been to something where it would lead to customer discomfort so effective all the models counsel kids could you have before too much time more time was the manufacturer in minnesota maybe a consumer a consumer report you know telephone lying there why did district court err and looking at what the expectations were of the individual consumers where they purchased their eighteen the tell me a little bit more about why you think that is an error sure there's actually three years there is to two hours of law and one of us is going to the st one is the presumption there is no presumption under minnesota law that says can't presume against extra turturro application just because it doesn't say this applies everywhere if anything it's the opposite and there is no miss minnesota supreme court test for its choice a lot of factors that say step one look at the presumption because it doesn't exist it was it was one that the court came up with that the defendants even now have sort of backed off and it's not like the the last argument in the choice of last section but the nd issue about the connections and really the due process and the arbitra the supreme court handled this frankly in all states where the court found you can have more than one law apply if you don't just look at the expectations of one party the question is is it arbitrary and the court hank said it was an arbitrary to apply minnesota law to an accident that occurred in wisconsin amongst wisconsin drivers when the plaintiffs seaton's wife moved to minnesota there was still enough connection here we have a minnesota company a t v s designed tested manufactured in minnesota decision we're not going to tell consumers about this defect we're going to hope to fix it down the road and skate by until then so having made that decision then that you know minnesota law does not apply nationally the court then then when applying to different states analysis the court frankly left three out in the seven lives it devoted to looking at the other states it never even mentioned new york florida missouri it mis applied the minnesota consumer fraud discussed by the court at all and the rebuttal evidence discussed by the defense in their brief merely as some people might have noticed some heat so people might have some experiences they can't possibly say the market knew that the a t v s violated  to the the court looked at only one of the four factors it did not consider anything outside a managed building and this court again in the custom here's one case in two thousand and twenty noted then in cases where you know small individual values like here eight hundred all the discovery is done all the experts are there most of the decisions by this site in their favor are not in a trial ready record they aren't mature record and they exercise the courts discretion after almost a full day of oral argument the court to differences in the evidence among lera sportsman a t v purchasers regarding the existence of the d forty three different a t v models multiple model years having different engineering designs and different management that differed over time different facts regarding defect manifestation causation knowledge reliance in to reality injury show that uncommon proven individual issues not common one predominate was that an air and exercise of the force discretion we submit is not under rule twenty three framework in addition we have abundant evidence that there's been no massive station ninety eight percent of all owners have ever had any complaint about any the name plaintiffs johanson and wonder advertise their vehicles for lady jordan tested three vehicles for one model year we have forty three different models over chan model years hundreds of differences serve the evidence and judge russell found this based upon the engineering  o'neill says it was earned says its product line defects are not sufficient they must manifest themselves for you to actually have a cause of action why is that the purchaser got with the purchaser bergen for early all of the class members they arrive they don't have are different you can't find another case where all the difference for an engineering perspective and there's allegedly some common defect except they said the actual the standards which no one knows about and not manifest themselves in any injury to the bucket causation we move for summary judgment at the same time and one of the reasons was to tease out the individual factual differences so the court can see actually how this case would be tried and the court found that there were individual factual distinctions and differences in the evidence among the various named plaintiffs that is consistent with the evidence that we put in about the last different people have different experiences with different vehicles but what it goes to is it shows that there's no sir and o'neill both make the point about the product line defect is not sufficient it has to be manifested and force the evidence in cern is quite different their evidence was ninety nine percent plus  manufactured in minnesota all the decisions were made here and then there is not some sort of a preference for the individual party to to pick another law so why why does the d and each one came out the same conclusion i guess i would answer st because this court under hughes i think answered the question that was the analysis and refuse in that case that had a dramatically negative impact upon the plaintiff say i'm a client whatsoever but the court applied the law to where the aggregation of context was the most significant so what are the aggregation of concepts that matter here the name deplaned just purchased from you state in five of the states cases they had contracts with the dealers indicating that the law this data purchased would govern through the doors not the fun this year but the terms of the name plaintiff's expectations that was their expectation a legit injury took place out  state where they paid the money one of the name players didn't even know it was even after his deposition preparation he testified he didn't know where they were but it simply cannot be that minnesota law is just applied if i was injured in the state of florida by buying a player vehicle and being in i would expect i think that florida law would govern but i would expect that minnesota law would govern that that's where i mean are you are otherwise you get into the position where there is a there is a conflict of laws you cannot explain that he was case for the paris case just for a circuit by reaching any other conclusion the consumer would expect that the consumer protection laws of his or her state would govern and protect him or her where they purchase the product where they dealt with the dealers now one of the interesting things about the corrected amended complaint is the corrected amended complaint refers to the d or conversations  so the witnesses are in terms of the plainest position they purchased from the dealers they paid the doers economic and we took place of the doers whatever knowledge they have in that state and their expectations as long by the contract that they signed in five of the s facts that there was no predominance and also found that there was no standing based upon wallace in a long line of other cases now in fairness the courts are somewhat split some streets the lack of manifestation as a standing article three issue no injury other ports say we don't need to get that far as a matter of law there's just no client in new york and the feinstein case so george ends up coming off the right way from our perspective but through a circuitous route so when you call it standing are fundamental differences in state law you come up with the same position that the district court reached in our case which was is not a theory of damages it's a new theory of liability they take the position now in this court that all the have to do is prove a price overcharge realignments causation  all that goes away that's not the law you can't find a single case that says that's the law it's a it's a fraud on the market theory they're trying to impute into the consumer fraud office which courts of uniformly reject that we discussed this s we marshal the various cases that are rejected but think of how absurd becomes you purchase a product it performs perfectly you love it but suddenly now you don't have to you're a member of a value forty point six percent of the people in her survey said they would pay the same amounts or pay more than they paid for their original polaris st survey was one thousand one hundred and eighty six dollars pages i read every single one of the pricing and everyone gets a point eight percent what the just report found was the name players that manifest the defects she was not going to say they couldn't use or a point eight percent theory to try to prove some portion of that applie not in right miller for the very very commonsense point the class definition put forth in the complaint is often a working definition might be tweaked as the pre surgical discovery process sheds light on the contours of the case that's what latent defect this wasn't some people get melting this was everybody gets an a t v that's too high i appreciate mr godfrey conceding that nobody knew what players knew so the fact that the discussions with the league the dealers as to the you know the defect that this is out of the norm and they see a t v worth six thousand dollars less than the sticker price as mr pin you did decided well maybe this one will work out better but again those individual issues according to tyson is not enough george will quickly i suggest your honour's look at the opinion it literally does say george assertion paying more than the c s s t is worth and the consequent loss and value of the structures are economic injury sufficient to establish article three that