he gets no response causes landlord the next morning he gets no response he waits a full week and gets no response so he called us and asked us to get him out of his lease because his landlord won't deal with the cockroach infestation who would want to live in an apartment infested cockroaches and we said his landlord a letter and we got no response and he sent his language a second letter and then we got a response and the second letter in addition to saying no i'm not going to let him out of his lease class action who compared it to barratry which is a criminal act and believes that the least creates the are bad ordinance and not the other way around and that is why we are here today there are three points i'd like to address before you comply with illinois supreme court will three forty one the illinois appellate courts all five and the illinois supreme court has filled with one voice repeatedly that a trial court should not there are cases that are going to lock you tory and the reason is that regardless what it went by certification is made at the time that inquiry is supposed to be made an inquiry into the merits of the case is simply not permitted it doesn't happen matter what happens afterwards and so i understand what you honest question is saying if if i understand you correctly you're asking well what is the point now since there was a judgment afterwards well i actually just asking about of the the presidential value of the cases that you cited to i believe they are both your honor crews i think wasn't interlocutory appeal but the reason that it matters here your honor is that the there is not a single case in illinois which sets that the that the standard changes when you vast difference between doing a class action trial and doing into big well actually try you call different witnesses you have the benefit of class discovery which we didn't have you have the benefit of potential settlement discussions if you didn't have here you have the benefit of looking at different people who are similarly situated which creates an inference that the meaning that the names plaintiffs also have that happened to him which we didn't have here and so all those are factors which demonstrate that that's the reason why this test exists because that classification you're simply asking are there other people who are just like name to point that was not the test that was applied by the court below and it doesn't matter what happens after that because but essentially you're done if you poison the for later and that's why regardless of what the end result of the case why is the standard just always the same and that's why there's never been a case that says well there's a judgment later the standard is different because essentially it's a hindsight if the hindsight factor act as the chicago residential landlord tenant ordinance evanson presidential land or tenant ordinance amount prospect ordinance and a number of other state statutes across the country every court has considered interpretation of those ordinances and statutes say that the problem with our case was essentially that it was a breach of contract case the court below said that we have to interpret the statute the contract in a way that is consistent with the statute the problem is that your ban ordinance by gets term section twelve point five said simply that the fifty year to fifty or more cockroaches didn't rise to the level necessary to have an ability by but even at that even if what the article had said was well i don't believe your client that still doesn't fix the problem with the ordinance itself and here is why i believe that the provision which said for example the landlord doesn't have a duty to mitigate damages in direct violation of the forcible entry detainer act in direct violation of the appellate court holding in st george these have a provision which said that if the tenant moves out for any reason early the tenant goes the entire amount of rent so what you have is a tenant who moves out for habitability by a wish and what happens is now ordinance said the court below only conducted in dallas as to what the lease meant and that was not the cause of action we were actually bringing the mount prospect ordinance like the evanston ordinance like the chicago ordinance all of which are almost verbatim the same have always held with one voice this is a strict liability ordinance and the ordinance prevailed over these common these provisions to the contrary for example in evanston versus create one of the cases that we cited in our brief the issue presented was whether and similarly to this case actually was whether the evanston ordinance had the authority to plain language of the ordinance here it plainly does for the reasons we stated in our brief the landlord is presumed to be withholding the tended to carry deposit for damages purposes there was never any evidence introduced at the trial or any other time to rebut that presumption and so essentially what happened was the landlord kept up my security deposit elaborate still has a fine security deposit and notably the landlord never filed any counter claims or from the defense's own any kind of set off  that would explain why the lender gets to keep the security deposit and this is just another example of how the court below was viewing it as a breach of contract claim not a statutory act which is what this case actually actually is the evidence presented and the closing argument would not have contained any evidence that we did that was valid didn't it because we couldn't have presented anything in the closing that we didn't present have to try therefore whether we did or whether we did not provide a written closing now going to the habitability issue we cited in our brief applegate versus in real estate which is a very similar set of facts to this one in applegate just as here the tenet moved in very same congress this court applegate held that that was enough for a constructive action that when you are living with dozens of cockroaches you shouldn't have to live with dozens of cockroaches and that you are allowed to leave the premises and not continue to live there that actually kind of mitigating your own damages now here is the other issue we gave the landlord our client give the landlord of full week a full week to fix the problem before returning t saw dozens of cockroaches dozens of cockroaches which means he had no reason to believe that the language would any point repair the problem because the landlord never contacted him never got back to him the full week he was waiting when he called nothing says that on the contrary if you look at the ordinance it's actually those are exemplars those are all those are those are all those things are these is a not an exhaustive list now i see that i'm running out of time courts in this particular case even though counsel suggests otherwise there was plenty of contradictory evidence this is certain was testified that the individual mr poseur which never called my client this ruby told the bugs any of these things all sorts of different factual issues the court ruled against the plaintiffs on these factual issues the other thing is this just a statement brings up you know typically if you're going to complain about something show when i went to present this to the court court said i'm not going to do this in the fall even though i could i'm going to do it on the merits and that's what judge leonard did he looked at all this information so it wasn't a matter of the finding the perfect in closing arguments judge i think knew a reason we should have known to provision was prohibited and then the land there either refuses to prove a sublease uses to provide a service serves the tenant with written demand concerning travel nation for nonpayment or prohibited fees or file suit against tentative forced but i don't think anything here would give rise to suggestion that what he did was to attempt to force if he made some reference that their money was still owed i don't think that's enough to actually make an attempt that might simply be a negotiation when they're getting letters from the chicago attorney trying to figure out the south but i don't think there's nothing here that would really rise to that level and moreover if you look at it really bit of the evidence that was presented it was disingenuous for even deceitful here in order to product of a violation of the housing banner inspectors and they testified that yeah there was a problem with the building which was completely alleviated a year and a half earlier there's never an apartment he problems with hermie team which was the source of this particular issue and again they don't include provisions of the ordinance failure to return security deposit does not apply if it's healthy for unpaid rent and again there's no application of interest on the security deposit of the ten day maintenance program he expected there was never any indication whatsoever mr reserve was doesn't take a picture of there's an infestation you'd expect him kids nowadays with the phone they're everywhere take a picture and show the court this is often just lighter there's nothing here in my view that gives rise to that judge white or done doing something that was so wrong or against manifest weigh the evidence cases presented he ruled against them they don't like it now they're here asking you to undo it there's thousand and fourteen of the matter was call for trial evidence heard according to the court's docket entry it states quote the court takes the matter under advisement the parties to submit written arguments closed so that is the cour beat into the ordinance further limitations the supreme court said that in lawrence that women are interpreted to chicago ordinance you can't reach into the ordinance additional limitations given these are both progeny from the same uniform act and in many cases they are you can even go with the exception of a couple of words here and there well they're the same that doesn't make any sense and especially when every other ordinance in the state is interpreted one way or ban it would be a different way that would make sense to interpret it that different