webb had conspired to bring this lawsuit in violation of kaiser v walden in order to pursue trouble damages under the last recovery act second the trial court found that a prior lawsuit that john webb had filed in florida against the i rose the defendants was an attempt to recover the same gambling losses at issue in this case of the last recovery act when a rd party brings suit to recover someone else's losses it's a prerequisite that the loser cannot have already pursued this remedy for himself the circuit court in this case found that the florida litigation was an attempt by john webb arguments that they raised in this motion to dismiss in the event that this court thinks that it did that decision was also in error moving out of the st issue of the florida litigation was not an attempt by john webb to recover the gambling losses at issue in this case or to recover any gambling losses at all the florida litigation or rose out of a very specific incident that was detail in both the florida amended complaint and the florida nd in the complaint the entire dispute between john webb on one side and the iris of the funds on the other side was when the book he was paying to this was on january th of two thousand and sixteen the very next day john went over one another three hundred and sixty thousand dollars from  point i had a row so recall that st my debts package before it was delivered to where he texted john webb that day and said i apologize i sent the wrong package i recall that i'm going to send you the correct package don't worry about it essentially he never did that he never he never sent any more money to john webb after a short period of time it became apparent to webb that he was not going to get the st one hundred and fifty six thousand he wasn't going to get the next three hundred and sixty thousand that one the next day at that point john webb essentially said ok i'm finished i'm not betting with this guy anymore at that point he requested the return of the money that he had still on deposit with this website when john webb would go on to make that it was through a website he had what was supposed to be an escrow account with with his money on deposit he said give me all my money back we're done here  there was six hundred and forty six thousand dollars supposed to have still been on deposit and supposed to have been held in an escrow account that money was not returned to john webb either so then the florida litigation arises the florida litigation concerned only that money that was supposed to have been held on deposit that had never been wagered that hadn't been won and hadn't been lost and also hadn't been returned to much to john webb when when he said you know we're we're through here webb has always maintained in florida and enough the florida pleadings i should say  supposed to have been held in escrow that was essentially stolen from him by mr right across the florida litigation only concerned that six hundred and forty six thousand they didn't sue for the the close quote pursuing his gambling losses that's just simply not the case and they ignore that when i was head of i had a rolls at that time he was up on a buy five hundred and sixteen thousand dollars  there's nothing in the pleadings in florida that even remotely suggest that he was pursuing his last that didn't even occur to anyone down there it was he was ahead of him if anything he would have been going after his winnings which brings me in to my next point that lawson and this case should not be judicially is stopped based on the allegations that another person donna would have made in florida now this is the issue that we did not raise in our opening brief it was raised in their response and that's because i don't believe the circuit kaiser is on point at this point the circuit court is talking about lawson standing to sue because she's the mother of webb and the court says quote and i think kaiser is on point i believe traditionalist aapl is on that issue is not only relevant but is controlling who was quote close quote that was the only mention of traditional stoppel in the trial court's ruling and with the you know the court siding keyser in that very same sentence there it wasn't clear from the ruling that the court had accepted all these judicial stoffel arguments forefront of our right to argue this point that however is not the case simply due to the fact that they did get the fully a chance to fully brief the issue and almost been caught by surprise here and  so getting to that to the issue their argument is that webb essentially admitted in florida that he never gamble with either of us so therefore how can sandra lawson come in to pursue his losses if he's already admitted he never hundred and sixty thousand dollars and when it was apparent to these text messages that this money was not ever going to be paid there so that point he stopped that so the argument in florida that nobody employing occurred was with respect to this  the six hundred and forty six thousand dollars in deposits that were sitting there that had never been that they hadn't been one that had been lost or stolen by this writer rolls just because no gambling ever occurred with that money that was sitting there in the account doesn't mean that no and gambling ever took place at any point between between those two individuals the florida lawsuit concerned a very brief snapshot in time it was essentially these few days in january of tw well there is two responses to that your honor amy there is a theory that the last recovery act doesn't say you have to credit the winnings that's not an issue before the score whether well he was up there was a package that was whether he's over the long run and has a net win or loss is a different issue than waiting for a check to arrive in the mail and i'm off as a today i guess i don't know the and the record is not clear whether he was since the beginning of his relationship with either  admitted he never gambled the other theory that is in the florida pleadings is that although it appeared gambling was taking they didn't meet their burden they didn't need the elements under seymour versus collins for judicial stoppel to apply the next argument that the circuit court relied upon in dismissing the case was that wet and lost that somehow conspired to bring this case and they rely the circuit court had relied on the kaiser and the stand in your case the defendant's argument under six thousand nine hundred and eighty nine was simply that webb lawson is the mother of webb that's it that's no not what we have here that's not anywhere in the record it's not certainly not apparent from the face of the pleading intact they didn't offer any evidence of that such those talk cases talk about lying in wait distinguishable i've already talked this morning about the text messages between i wrote site and web when the money was supposed to have been sent to the web these individuals were very familiar with each other whenever i had messages that's not the situation that was addressed in the do better case where there was a daily fantasy sports website that allowed complete strangers to match up randomly through this website the website at issue in our case was twenty eight dollars desh eight days and tell it to initiate action to recover his losses does it does not in fact pursue his remedy any person made initiate a civil action against the winner when it so is if mr webb sought to recover his complaint alleges that as a result of the defendants my clients allege misrepresentations wedding for dimon losses in excess of fifty thousand dollars so what continues to seek his gambling losses through the will county los did not intend for allegedly m and losers to refrain from exercising their right to recovery were they were alleging breach recovery in favor of a family member or some other person obtaining treble damages proof of a conspiracy that is generally correct your honor however this case the unique facts of this case presenting a a present on the face of the pleadings the existence in the country the court rightly says reviewed review those facts to determine that there was no material a question of fact as to whether a secret arrangement existed or any court did use the terms you just will stop will and effectively granted this missile on the basis of every argument we made in our motion to dismiss i think that we have to presume that the court did not misstate its basis for betting with the other people at the table if it's  application and i think here that the the circuit court rightly found that given the history between history of litigation between mr webb and my clients  visit on the public record and i just want to note that the court refused to dismiss mr webb's claims which continue in the circuit court mr webb is continuing to try to recover his alleged deposits and in fact  damages in excess of fifty thousand dollars and wasn't specific wagers itemized there was a statute of limitations defense raised by the feminists and that was at issue in this last motion to dismiss it was not it was a six hundred and fifteen argument that was never addressed because the case was dismissed on six hundred and nineteen at the end of the motion to dismiss the original complaint the judge said give me some more information we need the judge said that each wager was a specific transaction so i could theoretically be up overall and still pursue my losses under this act so what the amended and nd minute complaints do is they contain my brief snapshot in time and they both specifically say that webb's losses included but were not limited to the following wagers which were a brief snapshot in time contained on the  does show a net win at the end but that is not material for today's analysis or it wouldn't have been material at the trial court level either each wager itself is a specific transaction which could be the subject of a lawsuit and loss record react in dealing and then moving on to the do better case counsel argued repeatedly that this here was simply a faceless website and it was very analogous to the do back her website where you're placing mester of faces website you don't know who's on the other and that's not the case we've talked this morning about the text messages between the parties the principals the  we are being a separate transaction and the courts request that we specifically itemize these wagers that was in the hearing on the motion to dismiss the original complaint but that recovery act was intended to apply to allow recovery when two people who know each other or are at least familiar with another's identity engage in illegal gambling this was not so that's