we're big is not correct that the law of the issues with the terminations would be the same for the tenants as it would be for the stakes that is correct so for example if what the difference were that the tenants claim is for a million dollars and the landlord's claim is for five or a billion dollars to make it easy for you would that be enough to our circumstance the impact of race what in this case that i mean it's not that the it provides we this when two or more persons have concurrent ownership interest in property a judgment for or against one of them concerning his interest does not have a fax under the rules ownership general ownership generally including the interests of the landlords and tenants also covered under the section is interest in which the right of possession is excessive such as those  even though there are different types of interest that the issue is really whether there is an identity of cause that cause of action  dependent on the pursuit of that lawsuit by the other and if one is not satisfied with that interview because the right interventions open why should race here kind of apply corning to classical don't have the first type of pretty bullish ship is where you have a a true representative relationship such as a trustee and a money beneficiary or a class representative of members of a class or a public entity and its constituents we don't we don't have that type of pretty relationship here because aig off the landowner didn't electric or or a point capital fit is to represent it's interested in the other case so what with that that's one type of pretty with pretty relationship that we don't have the second type of pretty relationship is of course successor is it ownership which we don't have because a  of prosecuted by a different law from a different meaning if we're talking about the connection between one party and another and whether or not those interests are so aligned that one becomes a virtual well certainly we're protecting our own our specific you want to protect you want second bite at the apple actually there's a close question because there's a question if this were a screen court case you have the right to file its own separate suit at this point in time it's because their interests were not protected they had separate interests now the it depends on how you define what interest is of interest is simply you mash the two together certainly of course having the same positive action would would would this allow parties that had separate interests from from litigating the case and what we're saying  of their shopping center and this makes sense the shopping center is a boss ass that they want to make sure that our value is maintain kaffir fitness doesn't own the  good but i think the actual character told me what you're describing is motivation it's one thing if there are case both parties share equally about every issue and case the difference is there is less at stake for the tenants then there is for the lender then  d i'm getting to that but but anyway i'll be the question should be whether there is enough at stake so that we don't have to worry about lest a lesser of rats or prosecution are to be found speed is too so that goes back to the original question if one party has a million dollar at stake and the other party has a five and we contend that those constitutional plans especially the one the first one which goes to the radius of the term white as used in the chips that you that see it on its face whether or not it is it his way and and so this was not a claim that could have been that this is this is not a claim that this is a new claim rising  because it once that's there then not there is only collateral stuff not reached well i'm not sure about clara stop it but certainly with respect to of these cases are reflected in the actual allegations of the complaints so i put both of the complaints in there and you will see the identity of the complaint i won't say it's plagiarism but all i can say is they basically giving every argue its own integrity in terms of filing its own while back without being bound by what happens when strangers derivative rights but otherwise why should the same thing apply if it applies to a different plot of property if another t f somewhere in the city is challenging of the test in its district is this is the fourth lawsuit to four had three state court what in the federal court that's why i cited a recent opinion which president the only mrs q testified as a as a witness for capital fitness the plaintiff in the original case and she testif same purpose as the original austin the capital that slice now they can't be any question as the commonality of actors they can't be any question of adequate recognize a progressive land development which are two different lawsuits they said because the first one which was lost its the pain of plaintiff lost the first  never the less that was cited it was properly plead it was properly grief and this court pointed out therefore the put the interests of the parties were fully represented in the attorney  but as far as the constitutional issue is concerned constitutional issue if it was appropriate should have a good raised and not usually either in capital fitness or in this case thirteenth they file their amendment court stepping in for the sake says it's a loser and since everybody knows it's a loser and says this is just right we're going to go into your hands and keep you from from our right your honor involved a successive relationship between owner and a developer in the scene in property interest which was mainly developing and improving a piece of property the beneficial owner in that case w defendant and in that in the first case was assessed the society of the dot the vanguard they were the beneficial or they transferred legal title to the developer who was the defendant in the second case there was a transfer of the same bundle about successive relationship between the owner and the developer as being a basis for privity with respect to the to the defense in the first case and the defendant in the second case in our case our case is no time relationship i know the court has said please move on from the statement second of judgment section fifty four but i will for the court to take a look at that section especially the illustration which specifically talks about in a situation landlord sues force first and it says whether the judgment is for or against the tenant doesn't preclude the landlord from suing because they have fundamentally different interests here  so that the because simply happening i think the confusion here is that it's the same property if it was different property it then it would be a different story but what if even eat local artist can have different interests that they hold in the same property and if they do then that is then they're not pretty but each other  restatement tox uses the word pretty and there was a question about why did a go off wait why didn't they intervene well you know this is not a case in which we live in a way allow for capital fitness to and then now are trying to get a second bite of the apple ark and our contention is that we had every right to sue when it made sense for us to sue because we have a separate interest and with respect to intervening in the case the onus is  co owners normally should be co plaintiffs and maintaining an action with reference to the common property but if the but if that the fan didn't does not object to the non jointer his failure to do so does not prevent interests now of course we're not the same parties that's why you have the identity of quite of interest to see whether another's there's any pretty there and we can tell you that there is no privity here even though it looks like on the face that we're talking about a man or tenant that has they have interests in the same problem they have different interests in the same property and i would i would implore the court to look at the other example that the restatement talks about which is the life tenet and the remainder now that that's an interesting relationship a lifetime in and remain in just like a landlord had it they both hold an interest in the same property but they hold a different interest certainly but our interests are to protect our unique property interests land ownership of course and in our society also special status with it comes you need to research possibilities as well as unique k the different transaction transaction here that arises out of these newly asserted constitutional claims is looking at the the statute to see whether or not it is on its face lighted which has nothing to do with and in certainly our ability to do that is our is and we have standing in order to to do that is where they were with the owner but that was a sack that something that that the issue the rules not could have did or could have been right it's whether or not there was