may please the court the facts of this case are squarely on point with the punitive damages decision in this court in mathias versus the core we're in a hotel committed fraud by concealing a known bed bug danger without the causing prior door break can choose another word has anyone been injured prior to you we don't know if anyone was injured specifically prior to me door so the door had it was not a shouter it was a sliding glass door that exploded in their answers to in a rugged tori's number four they said that the door in thirty six twenty seven which was the room that i was in was never replaced so judge live in weber had upon that it was obvious that the door had to have broken in the two weeks prior to my stay because there is evidence in the record where the six twenty seven twice forty four nineteen and another door that five of those doors had broken my incident was unique in that the record shows that my room my very room thirty six twenty seven had to have broken and exploded in the two weeks prior to my stay additionally my sister was in a different road after the door exploded when the hotel engineer was explaining what had happened he told my sister that it looked like the stopper moved again you should probably go check your room because this is on the do not sell list that was how a video was born where we were actually able to take video of the problem that they had with that door additionally judge line and weber has already said it can be inferred that the room in part of the door in partnership room they knew does that answer your question your honor yes thank you very much ok getting back to where i was in this case district court judgment a shock committed reversible error of law by striking my request for punitive damages without liability negligence was my only viable cause of action he failed to read paragraphs nine through eighteen of my amended complaint which clearly describes my claim of check and fr that occurred on april twenty seventh two thousand and seven here roni asli assume the judge line weber's discussion of four seasons separate and distinct building permit fraud of december eighteenth two thousand  april twenty eighth two thousand so right so as of that date what evidence was there that the hotel staff knew there was this great hazard they knew that they had a problem with those doors because a bunch of maintenance staff had broken the doors they knew that the stopper had moved again they also did not have permission to install those doors so how does how is it different is that from them and they  building a case that that you cited where you had the seventeen hole functions of that elevator in the illinois courts tell us well there's pretty strong that's pretty strong evidence of negligence but did not allow punitive damages climate change i don't know specifically how many answer that question right now can i get back to you on the rebuttal but what happened was they didn't have a permit to install those doors they were thousands of gas that checked in they got a warning from my family my sister's door was defective and sure enough about five months later they hadn't taken any safety measures measures and another little boy was hurt so he might have a better claim that you do so the focus really needs to be on the situation as of the time you were hurt with the incidents that happened before yes judgment not believe on the issue of negligen my complaint was completely void of any mention of ordinary negligence judge shot ride to his erroneous conclusions without realizing that four seasons never challenge to check in price its motion for summary judgment after the pretrial stage of proceedings when all the evidence would be available for review for seasons has acknowledged that punitive damages remain viable after the summary judgment process the first full sentence of page four and it's brief to this court reads based on judge lyman weber's order only the premises liability negligence count and claim for  punitive damages remain against four seasons if judge wine were allowed ordinary negligence and punitive damages to survive summary judgment as first seasons agrees then the evidence of punitive damages must have been substantial judge shah failed to respect the findings of rulings of judge lining webber who labored through one hundred forty docket entries including dozens of credible documents good afternoon your honor please lord i'm not going to touch i'll just touch briefly on the two minor issues regarding mr paris's motion to withdraw and the motion for leave to file a second man to complete i'm going to ask you parker plausibly alleged there were requisite amount your honor at this point in time based on the post motion filing that i made regarding the costs emitted by ms parker in this matter i had to argue that cost before i took i took over this case after the motion in limine a to strike punitive damages filed by prior counsel so it seems to me that at some point in time subsequent to the motions filed and some reason for summary judgment filed in this matter council or defendant decided to file the motion to strike most unlimited to strike punitive damages and it seems that when that motion was brought up before judge shot judge saw i had some class it is as to how such a isn't about pleading this is about whether the plaintiff had offered enough evidence that would lead a reasonable jury find wanton willful conduct right and that's a person that's the purpose of a motion and limiting in order to allow the court not to have matters go to the jury that should not go to the jury well so the motion eliminate was filed a motion limit it was granted the bottom line and i think the court had kind of alluded to this there's been no evidence even if you were to take all the evidence in the light most favorable to to this room that was not addressed in my brief but the comment itself do not sell it doesn't really mean anything without any specific facts behind it the where do we find evidence of this evidence in the record evidence of what about it do something that was told to her by hotel staff that's what that's what she alluded to in her affidavit yes kerry but even so even with that particular information what does that mean what does it mean to be on a do not sell this miss parker has failed to put forth any evidence as to what it means to be and do not sell list is it because of the fact the room wasn't ready for sale because it wasn't made up is it because of the fact that there was some other issues in that room we don't know because there's no evidence of that do not show after who talked about the growing up of the show or you mr garton came in afterwards and said this is according to our affidavit a resistor that might have been on a do not sell list but at the same time i of a potential break in the afternoon was faced on an e mail by mr sheridan that came from somebody a contract mirror and glass now i argued in my brief that technically that information is double hearsay when never be admiss  at the trial court but even even even if the court were to consider that email as evidence what does it tell us the only thing that it tells us is that there may have been a break and that's it break it's of what we don't know so here again that miss parker wants this court to speculate that it was some type of breakage of a sliding glass door that shattered her exploded or caused a potential e so once again even looking at the evidence in the light of the most favorable to the plaintiff in this particular matter there really is no evidence of punitive damages and that was particularly brought up by judge shah during his ruling on motions eliminating number it so i'm looking at the shove on affidavit which his bait which reports on what engineer joe garden said right you agree that what garden said would be admissible against the hotel recently undergone renovations and that a bunch of the newly installed sliding door glass doors had exploded because the overhead track stoppers were not working properly that allowed the door handles to crash into the walls and cause the glass doors to explode this was one of the rooms on the do not sell list you might want to check yours that certainly seems to me of least on summary judgment to link the do not sell list to the condition of the doors well if you're asking if it's based on a motion for the if the district judge excludes as a matter of law because of insufficient evidence that's essentially a variation on the use of a summary judgment standard not your your honor i had i did address that affidavit that even that affidavit only allows this court to speculate that that put those particular issues involved through thirty six twenty seven he never said mr garton this particular room had a door break in it before this incident and that's what we're really looking at here there's no evidence that your theory that it had to be the same door for this to amount to of will for two men and two willful and one conduct no i'm not saying ok room not same door but he's saying a bunch of these have exploded before because of those problems stoppers this is one of the rooms on the do not so with now your question about the men on that case there was no evidence of prior injury in the seventeen elevator stop which is in the elevator case there was no defiance violation of a building permit and no criminal misconduct in regards to just summing this up quickly with one of the questions that judge wrote here had asked about one of the most important things judge line is what our head also a pine that there was a missing incident report it was ordered on several occasions to be produced by the defendant and they have steadfastly refused to produce the incident report for the prior breakage which just seems that it would be adverse to them and they've they've concealed it and other evidence for a long long time how do you know that there were no words on the do not tell a from joe bar telling my sister when she investigated what happened everyone wanted to know so bad what happened he told her what happened and it is in evidence because judge line or whatever has already stated that it is  part of the residual hearsay rule he admitted it and it is officially evidence of record but if someone at the desk tell you it was not yes when we checked in i was asking for a key and a room for myself one of my sisters and asked to have rooms near each other for the wedding they said that it would be really hard but she would go check to see if she could get us together now but did she say i have a do not tell rooms that we had as a family had that problem and anyone that walked in and would put that to work in normal use could see what was going on they can see on all the evidence of what's going on thank you ms parker