[00:00:02] Speaker 00:
Let's let the courtroom clear.

[00:00:15] Speaker 02:
Let the courtroom clear.

[00:00:57] Speaker 03:
That's no reflection on you, Mr. Marcus.

[00:00:59] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:01:00] Speaker 01:
May it please the court?

[00:01:02] Speaker 01:
My name is Jarrell Marcus.

[00:01:03] Speaker 01:
I represent the plaintiffs who are also the appellants in this matter.

[00:01:06] Speaker 01:
Your Honor, our position here is that the trial court made some very basic mistakes, failing to follow really black letter rules.

[00:01:15] Speaker 01:
The Red Cab case makes it absolutely clear that the amount and controversy requirement

[00:01:21] Speaker 01:
And it's an amount in controversy.

[00:01:23] Speaker 01:
It's not the amount you're ultimately entitled to.

[00:01:24] Speaker 01:
The amount in controversy requirement is to be assessed at the time a case begins.

[00:01:30] Speaker 01:
The trial court here actually assessed that amount.

[00:01:33] Speaker 07:
There was an amended complaint here, right?

[00:01:35] Speaker 07:
There was.

[00:01:35] Speaker 07:
And doesn't the Supreme Court in Rockwell tell us that we should look to the amended complaint?

[00:01:39] Speaker 01:
The amended complaint is the complaint that the

[00:01:43] Speaker 01:
Substance of the complaints as far as the court's assessment of the jurisdictional amount did not change.

[00:01:50] Speaker 07:
Rockwell doesn't make that distinction.

[00:01:51] Speaker 07:
It says you look to the amended complaint to determine jurisdiction.

[00:01:54] Speaker 01:
Yes.

[00:01:54] Speaker 07:
You look at the amended complaint here.

[00:01:56] Speaker 01:
We have no difficulty with that.

[00:01:57] Speaker 01:
Our amended complaint is the complaint we're talking about.

[00:02:00] Speaker 01:
My friends on the other side have called the court's attention to the fact that the relative accounts were dismissed.

[00:02:06] Speaker 01:
But the relative accounts were dismissed at the very beginning.

[00:02:09] Speaker 01:
And the trial court, at its first assessment,

[00:02:11] Speaker 01:
of the jurisdictional amount did not rely on the derivative counts in order to come to the conclusion that the jurisdictional amount had been satisfied.

[00:02:18] Speaker 01:
So the fact that they were not present in the second amended complaint doesn't change anything.

[00:02:23] Speaker 01:
That was the case the first time and we weren't invoking it the first time.

[00:02:27] Speaker 07:
So if we look at only the second amended complaint, how do you get to $75,000?

[00:02:31] Speaker 01:
We get to $75,000 in all sorts of ways.

[00:02:34] Speaker 01:
We can get it, well first of all, our position is that

[00:02:38] Speaker 01:
whether you can get to $75,000 is to be assessed on the basis of what we claim about what the law was.

[00:02:42] Speaker 01:
So one of the things that happened here... In the amending complaint.

[00:02:46] Speaker 01:
Okay, I understand.

[00:02:46] Speaker 01:
Let me get to the quickest answer to your honor's question.

[00:02:49] Speaker 01:
The defendants in this case have taken over $300,000 out of the kitty of this academic society and used it to fund their political activities.

[00:03:00] Speaker 07:
And who's damaged by that?

[00:03:02] Speaker 01:
We've requested an injunction.

[00:03:04] Speaker 01:
Put aside the question of damages.

[00:03:05] Speaker 01:
Put aside the question of whether we can actually get that $300,000 back.

[00:03:09] Speaker 01:
They show every intention, as far as our discovery shows, of continuing to do that.

[00:03:13] Speaker 01:
And we sought an injunction to stop it.

[00:03:15] Speaker 07:
And ASA is hurt by that.

[00:03:16] Speaker 07:
But how are the plaintiffs hurt by that?

[00:03:19] Speaker 07:
You have to show a direct injury.

[00:03:21] Speaker 01:
There's no dispute that the plaintiffs have the right to seek.

[00:03:25] Speaker 01:
There's no holding here, anyway.

[00:03:28] Speaker 01:
And I don't think even the defendants are claiming that we don't have the right to seek an injunction to stop that if, in fact, it's wrong.

[00:03:35] Speaker 01:
We've made the claim that it's wrong.

[00:03:36] Speaker 01:
We've made the claim that it's a breach of the ASA's obligations.

[00:03:40] Speaker 01:
And we saw an injunction.

[00:03:43] Speaker 05:
Your friends on the other side point out, I think at page 30 of their brief, that this was not an argument that you made below.

[00:03:51] Speaker 05:
as far as amount of controversy, and you didn't respond to that in your reply brief, so why isn't this forfeited?

[00:03:58] Speaker 01:
We raised the issue of an injunction.

[00:04:00] Speaker 01:
What the trial court said was, you haven't shown me exactly how you get there.

[00:04:04] Speaker 01:
And that's true, we didn't.

[00:04:06] Speaker 01:
But we did say that we are seeking an injunction.

[00:04:09] Speaker 01:
We also said we were seeking punitive damages.

[00:04:11] Speaker 01:
We did not put in front of the court a detail of how we can prove

[00:04:18] Speaker 01:
that $300,000 is the amount taken, or whatever the amount is, it's in excess of $75,000.

[00:04:23] Speaker 01:
We're not supposed to scour the record.

[00:04:25] Speaker 01:
You are.

[00:04:25] Speaker 01:
No, no, no.

[00:04:26] Speaker 01:
You are.

[00:04:26] Speaker 01:
And there's no... You don't need to.

[00:04:29] Speaker 01:
If we've come into court and said we saw an injunction, it's worth $75,000.

[00:04:33] Speaker 01:
That's enough.

[00:04:36] Speaker 01:
That's the law.

[00:04:37] Speaker 01:
The law is if we come in and make a good faith claim, we don't have to prove it at the outset.

[00:04:41] Speaker 07:
But what's the good faith claim?

[00:04:42] Speaker 07:
How do you get $75,000 of direct injury?

[00:04:46] Speaker 07:
You can't be raising before us injuries to the corporation here, right?

[00:04:53] Speaker 01:
With respect, Your Honor, the question of how the $75,000, how the injunction is to be valued

[00:04:59] Speaker 01:
is its impact on the defendants.

[00:05:00] Speaker 01:
It's not how much money is going to go into my client's pocket.

[00:05:04] Speaker 07:
That is not the question.

[00:05:05] Speaker 07:
That sounds to me like a derivative claim.

[00:05:08] Speaker 07:
In this case, you can't be bringing claims about how the corporation is hurt.

[00:05:14] Speaker 07:
That's a derivative claim.

[00:05:15] Speaker 07:
You failed to make a demand letter

[00:05:18] Speaker 07:
That claim's not here.

[00:05:19] Speaker 07:
Right, right, right.

[00:05:20] Speaker 07:
So as I understand it, you've got to be showing us how your plaintiffs were hurt to the tune of $75,000.

[00:05:26] Speaker 01:
With respect to the injunction, respectfully, Your Honor, I disagree.

[00:05:29] Speaker 01:
We've cited authority that says that the value, the way it was assessed, the value of an injunction

[00:05:35] Speaker 01:
is what it's going to cost the defendants to comply.

[00:05:38] Speaker 01:
Your Honor is asking a separate question, which is, are we entitled to seek an injunction?

[00:05:42] Speaker 01:
We say yes.

[00:05:43] Speaker 07:
I don't believe that... Why isn't that a derivative claim?

[00:05:46] Speaker 07:
That's what I'm missing.

[00:05:47] Speaker 01:
Nobody's made an argument that it's a derivative claim.

[00:05:49] Speaker 07:
That has not... I know you haven't characterized it that way, but why isn't it that?

[00:05:53] Speaker 07:
I'm saying, as I understand it, the $75,000 amount that you're claiming

[00:06:00] Speaker 07:
is an injury to the corporation.

[00:06:05] Speaker 07:
That's an injury to the corporation.

[00:06:06] Speaker 01:
I hear, Your Honor.

[00:06:07] Speaker 07:
And why isn't that... Respectfully, well... That's not a derivative claim?

[00:06:10] Speaker 01:
Well, A, no, it's not a derivative.

[00:06:13] Speaker 01:
Why?

[00:06:13] Speaker 01:
Okay.

[00:06:15] Speaker 01:
I will answer the question.

[00:06:16] Speaker 01:
Yes.

[00:06:16] Speaker 01:
I do insist on reminding, Your Honor, that that was not the basis for the decision of the court below, and I don't even believe it's an argument that they've made.

[00:06:22] Speaker 01:
I'm sure we'll hear how it is.

[00:06:23] Speaker 01:
somehow snuck its way in, but I don't believe it's here.

[00:06:26] Speaker 01:
Having said that, the DC law on nonprofits is not the same as corporation law in other states.

[00:06:37] Speaker 01:
And we've cited two very important cases, Daley and I believe Jackson, which hold that a member of a nonprofit has standing to do things that... But do either Daley or Jackson say you can recover damages to the institution?

[00:06:53] Speaker 01:
in a direct suit?

[00:06:55] Speaker 01:
I believe that they say that we have the standing to challenge the conduct.

[00:06:59] Speaker 01:
Whether we can get the money back, and this is important, there's a distinction between whether you can get the money back, which is not what we're talking about here.

[00:07:10] Speaker 01:
I want to make that absolutely clear.

[00:07:11] Speaker 01:
We're not talking about getting the $300,000 back.

[00:07:14] Speaker 01:
The second question is, can you get an injunction making them stop doing it going forward?

[00:07:19] Speaker 01:
And our position is, those cases allow us to do that.

[00:07:22] Speaker 01:
I don't believe the defendants have mounted an argument that it's wrong.

[00:07:25] Speaker 01:
The trial court certainly did not hold that it was wrong.

[00:07:28] Speaker 01:
The question has not been briefed.

[00:07:31] Speaker 07:
How is that a direct injury to the plaintiffs?

[00:07:35] Speaker 07:
How is that a direct injury to the planet?

[00:07:38] Speaker 01:
Because the DC's non-profit corporation code says that a member of a non-profit corporation can do things.

[00:07:45] Speaker 01:
Your Honor is thinking like a corporate lawyer, which I understand.

[00:07:48] Speaker 01:
That's how I started thinking about this myself.

[00:07:50] Speaker 01:
Why is this any different from a shareholder of a company, a for-profit company in Delaware?

[00:07:56] Speaker 01:
But it's not the same.

[00:07:57] Speaker 01:
The DC's law is different.

[00:08:00] Speaker 01:
The DC law is different, and that's a crucial point.

[00:08:02] Speaker 01:
Now, the question whether we can actually, we've never sought this, and I think it's an important point just to reference quickly.

[00:08:08] Speaker 01:
It's not as if we came into court and said, well, you spent $300,000.

[00:08:11] Speaker 01:
I'd like to recover that and put it, our clients put it in our client's pocket.

[00:08:15] Speaker 01:
That's never been our effort.

[00:08:16] Speaker 01:
But putting aside the question whether there's any ability to recapture the $300,000 and focusing simply on the injunction.

[00:08:25] Speaker 01:
which is its impact on the defendants, and I apologize when I stand back up, I'll have the cases, but we cited them in our brief.

[00:08:31] Speaker 01:
The way to evaluate an injunction for purposes of diversity jurisdiction is to ask, among other things, one of the bases is, what will it cost the defendants to comply?

[00:08:40] Speaker 01:
Without any regard to how much money is gonna go into the plaintiff's pocket to do completely separate issues.

[00:08:47] Speaker 01:
And our position, I think it's very well founded.

[00:08:49] Speaker 01:
A, we have a basis for believing that.

[00:08:51] Speaker 01:
B, we don't have to go into detail.

[00:08:53] Speaker 01:
If we had to, we could.

[00:08:55] Speaker 01:
But we don't have to.

[00:08:57] Speaker 07:
Is there any record support for that valuation of $100,000?

[00:09:01] Speaker 01:
In the trial court record, oodles.

[00:09:03] Speaker 01:
Yes, there is.

[00:09:04] Speaker 07:
I mean, part of my difficulty is... Where in the briefs do you identify?

[00:09:08] Speaker 01:
It's not in the briefs.

[00:09:09] Speaker 07:
Well, that's a problem.

[00:09:10] Speaker 01:
Well, it would be a problem if the issue had been, you said you wanted an injunction, but you didn't specify, and you have an obligation to specify.

[00:09:21] Speaker 01:
Our position is that at the outset of the case,

[00:09:24] Speaker 01:
And I think the law on this is clear.

[00:09:26] Speaker 01:
At the outset of the case, if the plaintiff comes in and says, I'm making a good-faith demand for a claim that's worth $75,000, at that point, and that's the point that matters, the trial court is not authorized to say, well, exactly what are the components of all of that?

[00:09:40] Speaker 05:
And that's what your honor is.

[00:09:41] Speaker 05:
What's your best authority for that proposition?

[00:09:43] Speaker 01:
Red cap.

[00:09:46] Speaker 01:
That's what red cap says.

[00:09:48] Speaker 01:
Red cap says the case, and it says it for a perfectly sensible reason.

[00:09:52] Speaker 05:
Which is... Do you have another case?

[00:09:55] Speaker 05:
Because if I don't read the red cap the way you do, you got... Well, help me understand, if your honor doesn't mind, help me understand how else it could be read.

[00:10:03] Speaker 05:
Well, I asked a question, not you.

[00:10:07] Speaker 01:
Okay.

[00:10:08] Speaker 01:
We have cases that have applied that injunction in the District of Columbia Circuit, and we've also cited both Seventh Circuit and Second Circuit authority for the proposition that you cannot create a regime in which

[00:10:20] Speaker 01:
the amount of contribution requirement is revisited for two very important reasons, one of which is directly relevant here.

[00:10:26] Speaker 01:
The first reason is that you're never going to get a correct answer all the time, because sometimes defendants win in diversity cases.

[00:10:33] Speaker 01:
So you're never going to know to a certainty.

[00:10:35] Speaker 01:
But the second point, and this is what happened to us, is that after twice confirming that the court had jurisdiction, that this amount had been satisfied, we were in our third year, fourth year, excuse me, of litigation.

[00:10:49] Speaker 01:
The trial court now decided to revisit the issue and change its mind, which is essentially what happened.

[00:10:55] Speaker 01:
Dismissed the case, sent us to the DC Superior Court, which held the statute of limitations had run in some of our claims, which puts us in a very awkward position.

[00:11:05] Speaker 01:
So one would have thought, I would have thought, I continue to think, that equitable tolling would have been sufficient to solve that problem.

[00:11:12] Speaker 01:
But equitable tolling is a matter of discretion for the court, and the court didn't exercise discretion that way.

[00:11:16] Speaker 01:
So we have the position of being in court, having the court twice tell us, no, you're in the right place.

[00:11:24] Speaker 01:
And then three and a half years later, say, oh, no, I changed my mind.

[00:11:27] Speaker 01:
No, you're not.

[00:11:28] Speaker 01:
Send us somewhere else, and then we're told that the statute is wrong.

[00:11:31] Speaker 01:
That can't be the law.

[00:11:35] Speaker 04:
All right, we'll give you some time to reply.

[00:11:40] Speaker 04:
Mr. Mugaburo.

[00:11:43] Speaker 06:
Good morning, Your Honors.

[00:11:44] Speaker 04:
Good morning.

[00:11:45] Speaker 06:
May it please the Court, my name is Tom Mugaburo.

[00:11:48] Speaker 06:
With my colleagues Richard Renner and Maria LaHood, excuse me, I'm here on behalf of the appellees.

[00:11:56] Speaker 06:
Bottom line here is that the derivative claims, as the Court knows, were not viable from the beginning of the case.

[00:12:04] Speaker 06:
The first complaint contained only vague allegations of individual damages, and as the court noted, you looked at the amended complaint to determine jurisdiction.

[00:12:16] Speaker 06:
When the amended complaint was filed,

[00:12:19] Speaker 06:
There were no derivative claims and there were no allegations of any damages suffered by the plaintiffs themselves.

[00:12:27] Speaker 07:
Would you answer your friend's argument to me that the DC law of non-profit associations changes the way we ought to think about this, that I was thinking about this and that?

[00:12:40] Speaker 07:
in the context of a corporate shareholder suit and that's not the right way to think about it.

[00:12:44] Speaker 06:
Certainly.

[00:12:44] Speaker 06:
Your Honor, I think the Daley and the Jackson cases recognize that when you're a member of a non-profit organization or charitable organization, you do not get a financial dividend for your membership.

[00:13:00] Speaker 06:
You don't get a check.

[00:13:01] Speaker 06:
In fact, as we all know from being members of nonprofits, it's usually the other way around.

[00:13:06] Speaker 06:
You're giving checks and buying gala tickets and making donations.

[00:13:10] Speaker 06:
You don't get money back.

[00:13:12] Speaker 06:
I think what the Daly and the Jackson courts recognized is that there is a non-monetary benefit to belonging to a nonprofit.

[00:13:23] Speaker 06:
So in the Daly case, the plaintiffs had lost their status as sorority sisters.

[00:13:29] Speaker 06:
as members of a long-standing sorority where alumni formed a community.

[00:13:35] Speaker 06:
In Jackson, the plaintiffs had lost their church.

[00:13:39] Speaker 06:
Those were damages.

[00:13:41] Speaker 06:
And the DC Court of Appeals recognized that you could look to those damages to determine whether or not there was a cause of action.

[00:13:53] Speaker 06:
And given that they had suffered those individual damages,

[00:13:59] Speaker 06:
those individual injuries, they had standing to challenge the organization's actions.

[00:14:07] Speaker 06:
I would also note that the jurisdictional threshold for Superior Court is $500.

[00:14:11] Speaker 06:
And if you don't meet that threshold, the remedy is not dismissal, it's simply you're referred down to small claims.

[00:14:18] Speaker 06:
So the question of how much those damages might be is for all intents and purposes irrelevant in the Superior Court.

[00:14:29] Speaker 06:
It's not irrelevant here.

[00:14:33] Speaker 06:
The second amended complaint... Why doesn't this fall under Daly and Jackson?

[00:14:40] Speaker 06:
Because, Your Honor, the second amended complaint did not enumerate any damages suffered by the individual plaintiffs.

[00:14:49] Speaker 06:
They were all to the institution?

[00:14:50] Speaker 06:
They were all to the institution.

[00:14:52] Speaker 06:
If you look at the claims for relief, if you look at the addendum, if you look at the allegations in the complaint,

[00:14:59] Speaker 06:
Look at the appellant brief.

[00:15:00] Speaker 06:
They're claiming damages suffered by ASA, not by themselves.

[00:15:06] Speaker 06:
There is no allegation that any of the plaintiffs suffered any kind of community damage.

[00:15:12] Speaker 06:
They weren't excluded from symposia.

[00:15:14] Speaker 06:
They were not allowed, they were not excluded from academic debate.

[00:15:19] Speaker 06:
They weren't kicked out of conferences.

[00:15:22] Speaker 06:
There's no allegation that they suffered any kind of injury in their own institutions.

[00:15:29] Speaker 06:
They didn't lose status as a professor.

[00:15:32] Speaker 06:
They weren't denied specific courses to teach.

[00:15:36] Speaker 06:
There's absolutely no allegation of that.

[00:15:41] Speaker 07:
Let's go back to Rockwell.

[00:15:44] Speaker 07:
Rockwell didn't involve an amount in controversy issue.

[00:15:48] Speaker 07:
If we were to apply it here, would we be extending

[00:15:51] Speaker 07:
The law in some way?

[00:15:53] Speaker 06:
Rockwell, Rockwell itself did not involve a jurisdictional threshold question.

[00:16:02] Speaker 06:
However, other cases that we have cited in the brief did involve that, and specifically the CUNY Law Group case out of... Yeah, well, I want to know about Rockwell in particular.

[00:16:14] Speaker 07:
Rockwell governs our court.

[00:16:19] Speaker 07:
If we were to apply Rockwell here, wouldn't that be an extension of the law?

[00:16:23] Speaker 06:
No, I don't believe so, Your Honor.

[00:16:26] Speaker 06:
I believe it would simply be another application of the law to the extent that Rockwell or other cases from this circuit have not yet looked at the amount and controversy element of jurisdiction.

[00:16:41] Speaker 06:
That's simply because those cases haven't been before the court.

[00:16:44] Speaker 06:
However, the Wright and Miller articles cited by the appellants make it clear and cite to a host of cases and footnotes that where the amount of damages is, where an element of damages is clearly not available from the beginning of the case,

[00:17:08] Speaker 06:
the court can go back and revisit jurisdiction, especially where the plaintiffs are vague in their initial pleadings as to what damages they are seeking.

[00:17:20] Speaker 06:
It's the subsequent revelation, essentially.

[00:17:24] Speaker 06:
It becomes clear that from the beginning of the case, they can't get derivative damages and they're not claiming individual damages.

[00:17:35] Speaker 06:
I would also note in the initial disclosure, which are mandatory,

[00:17:39] Speaker 06:
They didn't list any individual damages.

[00:17:42] Speaker 06:
How do you square Red Cab with Rockwell?

[00:17:48] Speaker 06:
Red Cab involved in a case where the first, two points.

[00:17:52] Speaker 06:
First, Red Cab was a removal case.

[00:17:56] Speaker 06:
And the plaintiff, the case got removed and then the plaintiff sought to reduce the damages below the jurisdictional threshold.

[00:18:02] Speaker 06:
And the Red Cab court said, in part at least, you can't do that.

[00:18:07] Speaker 06:
You can't play with the system.

[00:18:09] Speaker 06:
You can't deny the defendant its right to a federal tribunal by simply jimmying the amount you're looking for in the lawsuit.

[00:18:19] Speaker 06:
In addition, though, I think REDCAP stands for the proposition that as long as it's clear from the beginning of the case that you could get damages above the jurisdictional threshold.

[00:18:34] Speaker 06:
then subsequent events that may limit that, dismissal of a claim on summary judgment, denial of an expert witness that knocks out a whole bunch of medical records, a whole bunch of medical bills, anything like that would not affect the jurisdiction of the court.

[00:18:52] Speaker 07:
Why isn't the filing of an amended complaint a subsequent event here?

[00:18:58] Speaker 06:
I think for two reasons.

[00:18:59] Speaker 06:
One, because it clarified what the

[00:19:04] Speaker 06:
with the damages that there was, it clarified what damages they were seeking.

[00:19:08] Speaker 06:
I'm starting to stammer, I apologize.

[00:19:10] Speaker 06:
It started to clarify what damages they were seeking and made it clear that they were not seeking individual damages where there were a couple of references in the first amendment complaint to reputational damage with absolutely no backup and no factual support for it.

[00:19:26] Speaker 06:
That was missing by and large from the second amendment complaint.

[00:19:29] Speaker 06:
It was all damage to the institution.

[00:19:33] Speaker 06:
In addition, the, by that point, frankly, we had already challenged jurisdiction twice and the plaintiffs knew that they had to, they had to deal with it somehow.

[00:19:50] Speaker 06:
The fact that it was not in the second amendment complaint made it absolutely clear.

[00:19:55] Speaker 06:
They were not claiming anything on behalf of themselves.

[00:19:57] Speaker 06:
It was only the institution.

[00:20:00] Speaker 07:
Your friend has cited what I'd say is sort of a general fairness principle here that for a number of years they were in the district court here thinking that the amount of controversy was adequate and then the district court reverses itself on this and they're left out of statute of limitations.

[00:20:19] Speaker 07:
What do you say to that?

[00:20:21] Speaker 06:
Well, I think two things.

[00:20:23] Speaker 06:
First of all, they should have known from the beginning.

[00:20:28] Speaker 06:
that the derivative claims were not going to be viable.

[00:20:32] Speaker 06:
They only gave two days notice.

[00:20:35] Speaker 06:
Nobody can confuse two with 90.

[00:20:39] Speaker 06:
And second of all, Your Honor, we have been challenged, again, as I said, we have been challenging jurisdiction since the beginning.

[00:20:46] Speaker 06:
They knew.

[00:20:47] Speaker 07:
The point is on the mountain controversy.

[00:20:49] Speaker 07:
Right.

[00:20:50] Speaker 06:
Right.

[00:20:50] Speaker 06:
And they knew, they should know, what kind of individual damages they might be able to claim and put up on the board.

[00:20:59] Speaker 06:
the fact that they waited for four years, I think.

[00:21:03] Speaker 07:
Well, they got a pass the first time from the district court.

[00:21:06] Speaker 07:
That didn't seem to be a problem.

[00:21:08] Speaker 06:
And then the district court came back and said, we're going to revisit it because I've got a question about volunteer immunity.

[00:21:15] Speaker 06:
At any point, they could have thought to themselves, we don't belong here, and could have filed in a superior court.

[00:21:24] Speaker 06:
I think the reason they didn't is because we had already made

[00:21:28] Speaker 06:
about the anti-slap suit which unfortunately doesn't apply in the federal circuit.

[00:21:34] Speaker 06:
I want to, before I run out of time, I want to address one thing which is the injunctive relief.

[00:21:40] Speaker 06:
There is no allegation as to the cost of the injunctive relief and in fact we stated in our arguments it would cost nothing to oppose these injunctions.

[00:21:49] Speaker 06:
I'm running out of time and I apologize.

[00:21:51] Speaker 06:
But the fact of the matter is as the court pointed out, any injunctive relief for damages

[00:21:57] Speaker 06:
for monies being spent does in your association and not the individuals and the DC code on ultra virus which we have in the appendix states that you can, if in a derivative action the court may, the spirit court may, it's 2940304C.

[00:22:25] Speaker 06:
Superior Court may enjoin action and award damages in a derivative action.

[00:22:30] Speaker 06:
This is not a derivative action.

[00:22:32] Speaker 06:
Thank you.

[00:22:32] Speaker 06:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:22:33] Speaker 04:
Does Mr. Marcus have any time to?

[00:22:37] Speaker 04:
All right.

[00:22:37] Speaker 04:
Why don't you take two minutes?

[00:22:39] Speaker 01:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:22:41] Speaker 01:
I wanted to answer a couple of questions that Your Honors had.

[00:22:43] Speaker 01:
This is a holding from the Court of Appeals, the DC Court of Appeals, in the Daly case, one of the cases we reference.

[00:22:51] Speaker 01:
Members of a nonprofit organization

[00:22:53] Speaker 01:
whose revenue depends in large part upon the regular recurring annual payments of dues by its members have standing to complain when allegedly the organization and its management do not expend those funds in accordance with the requirements of the Constitution and the bylaws of that organization.

[00:23:09] Speaker 01:
That's our claim.

[00:23:10] Speaker 01:
That's a large part of our case.

[00:23:12] Speaker 01:
So the idea that we should have known

[00:23:14] Speaker 01:
when we started this case.

[00:23:15] Speaker 07:
That's a broader statement than was necessary in the facts of Daly, though, right?

[00:23:19] Speaker 07:
I mean, your friend is correct, isn't he, in his characterization of the facts of Daly, the Daly-involved claim, and Jackson claims that affected the status of the plaintiff.

[00:23:32] Speaker 01:
They affected the status of plaintiffs, but they affected the behavior of the organization.

[00:23:36] Speaker 01:
And the issue was not, those people did not go into court to get $4.33 in damages.

[00:23:41] Speaker 01:
They went into court to affect the conduct of the organization.

[00:23:47] Speaker 07:
Because they had been injured directly.

[00:23:49] Speaker 01:
They disagreed.

[00:23:50] Speaker 01:
They thought the organization was doing the wrong thing.

[00:23:53] Speaker 01:
They lost their church.

[00:23:54] Speaker 01:
They thought the church had been, I mean, there was a dispute within a church.

[00:23:57] Speaker 01:
It's a religious argument.

[00:23:59] Speaker 01:
It's not that somebody had taken their property.

[00:24:01] Speaker 01:
It wasn't property that they owned.

[00:24:04] Speaker 01:
They were members of an organization.

[00:24:05] Speaker 01:
The organization had been hijacked.

[00:24:07] Speaker 01:
That's exactly what we say.

[00:24:09] Speaker 01:
And they were complaining about how that organization was conducting itself.

[00:24:14] Speaker 01:
And the issue was do they have standing to do that?

[00:24:16] Speaker 01:
Do we need to monetize that?

[00:24:18] Speaker 01:
Do we need to ask how much money is going to come back into your pocket if you win?

[00:24:21] Speaker 01:
And the answer resoundingly is no.

[00:24:24] Speaker 01:
So it seems to me to say, well, you guys should have known four years before when you filed this thing that this wasn't going to mean what I think it pretty plainly means, especially when we were told twice that we were in the right place.

[00:24:39] Speaker 01:
That can't be right.

[00:24:41] Speaker 01:
It just cannot be right.

[00:24:42] Speaker 01:
With respect to the question of the value of the injunction, we did not put a dollar figure in our complaint.

[00:24:48] Speaker 01:
But when the court called us to the second time, when it again confirmed that it had jurisdiction, we did include in our brief a discussion of the value of injunctive and declaratory relief at issue in the SAC.

[00:25:00] Speaker 01:
And we pointed out our briefing on that issue

[00:25:02] Speaker 01:
We discussed in detail the extent of ongoing financial injury to the ASA, including withdrawals from the ASA Trust Fund in excess of $100,000 per year to fund these activities.

[00:25:13] Speaker 01:
So the trial court had that information in front of it the second time it confirmed that the amount in controversy requirement was satisfied.

[00:25:23] Speaker 01:
And our position is it just can't be that after all of that, we can be thrown out and then told the statute of limitations

[00:25:32] Speaker 04:
All right, we have you out.

[00:25:33] Speaker 04:
Thank you.