had included allegations about his proffered expert in the complaint itself and in the body of the opinion specifically pages two hundred two hundred one you expressed concern concerned that it was speculation potentially that we didn't really know whether or not the prices were increased or decreased but we made a said and in effect a call in for more of an expert support you cited in the first opinion only one economic piece of literature that if you walk through it would not really support the theory that we had alleged so the road map was set forth and interesting we grew you granted you granted leave to replete in the discretion of the district court and we went back there back to the district court and we amende based upon by a second model you will require all you went through two models of the pick and model number one which was the difference between the face value of the ticket and that what you paid and your honour's reason that because he did not below their raise on the first appeal and critically they raised what i knew from leave to appeal they said and the transfer was for your honors they said you cannot have a board with me standing because once again  partake in a watery and i argued no the third circuit did not close the door they remain added for neve to repleat and that was granted so the district judge rejected the argument once again that model number two argument of your honor is great the leave to plead in the discretion of the district court when i made that application i included my amended complaint in the you that this is really chock full of knots what it would have done here without discovery and i don't think i've seen a single case in this district that has ever played an expert series of opinions tunnel felt was a little bit too office just saying supply and demand which is the way we played it the first time this is the most intricate set of conclusions analysis and opinions and just start forty nine separate annotations to these opinions on the complied forty nine this is one of this is one of the most intricate expert reports and literally forty years of a practice i've never seen but if we look at bad and conclude it's all just opinions of an expert and it's not new facts that haven't followed the guidance that the court gave me one for the if i buy theaters i have and the reason i have is because there's a around the country specifically inserted in the green tree case which suggests that we're not challenging the bord after i got a verdict in the morning for a motion to vacate the reality is working on the i'm working on what i can do and the order freestanding requirements really really more quite liberal throughout the country and we only need to pass a constitutional muster does it does it feel does it smell like a case or controversy i don't have to prove my case at this level that's what the word says and the this is exactly the expert who anybody would engage to say tell us if there is any effect on the secondary market and his conclusion that there is by quite frankly judge storch don't know what else without discovery that i will and at church what is it i can i think i need to put some context in it before answering your question i have a really a very unusual procedural situation going on here your waters decided in early two thousand and sixteen that we write articles restating and therefore the analysis and opinions of the district court were really no one void because the district court had no jurisdiction knowing that knowing that the district court second never argued that this had committed this violation of the consumer fraud act and of course that can't because it's a remedial statute that is the most protective in the country and i quite frankly there's no other in the country that gives the public this protection moore is  any other state the country know where the jurisdiction where there's been commissions and studies and reports that went on for years about why it was the public was being deprived access to one good pricing and two good seats and the way it was solved is our legislators said wait a second if you're going to hold an event in new jersey whatever it may be you need to sell money five percent or more of the property that's what our legislators say and that is the simplest plain reading at all you cannot read the statute you and let's talk about that let's talk about that because if that's the view of the statute then the statues needless because the reason why the statute was passed is to prevent promoters and insiders from speak twice below you can't you can read into the statute language which says that the promoter intended to sell that's not part of it look evil but the statute was there to cure with this very evil percent of the teams twenty five percent played it we played it it's it's factual record it's never been disputed it's clear in this case the suit the n f l decided it only want one percent of the public to have access to tickets played that that those tickets seventy five percent allocated would teams the raj majority were then sold to the major brokers who control the marketplace and increased the price of the secondary market so to that extent tried to that extent we had to satisfy each of the three of the three that i know we've gone past the time but if you could answer that n f l says well if you're right about  for instance there is a battle eagle on this very same theory the interest in new jersey it is it and that is why there are several cases pending against the major concert promoters and that is why those cases are still pending in the district of new adversary given the difficulties interpreted in this statute and especially given the public policy concerns that you yourself have spoken to  the court your honor is if it is true that this court provided a road map for the sweetness to follow on remains they have surely fallen off course because your honor is the only difference between the version of the that in fact super bowl forty eight the event that issue is mentioned twice in the entire extra report was such detail never before seen expert report is not so detail to actually address the only haven't had discovery yet for the ninety seven doesn't really talk about facts it says this court didn't have to evaluate what would have happened if the expert opinion was in the complaint which now it is why isn't that enough at this point in all of that the whether or not the foundations of that experts opinions are speculative or are grounded in fact and he just wouldn't have been a question it is now and we are here claimed that the workers were paid the wages lower wages than they should have been because the employer had employed all of these undocumented in immigrants and they actually had an expert who pushed worth an expert report case had failed to properly mark some steel pipe fittings so that it would be properly taxed and their expert in that case went through a huge statistical analysis in fact it was a professor from the university of pennsylvania wrote a school of with the new jersey consumer fraud act provisions we're dealing with these still would not be constrained by its previous pricing policy with respect to one percent of the see if a as a whole as mr nadler were extremely a very pro consumer a statute that stands out nationally and i know of no other state statute that is his ok but he's got his great harvest too which is and this is going to be my question to you he says if your interpretation of statute is right then no one will ever violate it can't be violated because you read in a tent into the statute and you can always just say well we never intended to sell any of these tickets resistance to the general public can you give me an example of who could ever how someone could violate the statute if your interpretation of it at last absolutely and i strongly disagree with their characterization our interpretation or reading of the clear language of the statute would not alter its application at all they would apply just as it's tended in our case there is a long history by their allegations that the n f l has never released tickets for sale to the general public but in most other concerts performances theatres there will be some dispute about that whether or not in the course of business tickets are routinely distributed to the public and whether right can't whoever the statute applies to if your interpretation is right right can't they just say this stadium is eight thousand seats we never intended to sell more than you know thirty thousand of them to the public so so we don't violate had been made available for public sale were actually withheld and that's what the plain we and the words used by the statute require it says it shall be an awful practice for a person who has access to tickets to an event prior to the tickets the first complaint and you will see in this amid the complaint of happy to supply the red line if it's an aid to the court you will see that we played this time but the bulk of the tickets under contract with series of new factual allegations which support the conclusion that but for the restrictive sales but for the violation of this statute the price would not have gone up injury in fact corpses what's the legally protected interest if we think you're wrong about the merits interpretation of the statute in the interest fact is quite quite quite simple this statute was passed to protect the public and restrict the price gouging in the secondary market injury factors that would anybody finkleman and other close members of the secondary market and paid substantially more than they should  don't know i'm not sure how to answer that because i'm not sure how to i'm not sure how to interpret a statute as a nobody in the n f l suggests as follows even though even though every district court judge here that's address