excuse for argument is simmons versus transit express  defend should be reborn as one of five or so reasons that we're going to brief the force or foremost of which is based on the new york city civil court act which governs the judgments of small claims court in new york city that carter is contradicted even by the title of the statute so that we go on to have been referencing the offset portion of the statutes as if it's the same claim that you subtract the amount that could be when saying in certain circumstances is an off right aren't don't don't all those three cases stand for the proposition it depends on what you're referring to when you say arrested or caught as we explain as and as the highest court in the country has pointed out restroom and collateral estop often conflated so for example traditional restaurant a car has an element that says that if you could have brought a claim based on the same facts and the issues is preclude right however this statute here says that you could bring a subsequent claim based on the same facts and issues if you were going to follow the statute or what is an example in which you can bring a subsequent claim and get a judgment based on the same facts issues and so on if it's not this type of case if if the argument is that traditional rest is still alive in this that it is meaningless because that language will be never be  jurisprudence from traditional russian to carter seeps into these cases without any distinction for the statute and based on the arguments that we are raising let me give you a prime example the defendant's own briefly defined claim  we brief this case extensively when you have those competing interpretations the analysis should begin and end with the statute if the statute is saying something different from what the non binding cases are or and i must saying those cases are holding that i think those cases that are can be distinguished for example in tovar in one plant in new york an article on your courts the best judges and what their statutes mean aren't in new york you can you know have one new york case that has said what you're saying three have said opposite you know what's the best subsequent claim based on the same facts issues and again with the same parties right now what example would that be if it's not one such as this case gate and issue if you come up in another context without having collateral estoppel a fact from a small claims case that's was the purpose of this it wasn't to our point of the split claims and mostly on the same subject matter but it is a different actually i think that's the more interesting argument i mean it seems to me interesting that an employee who contractually negotiates away knowingly liquidated damages or over time can't do that not is that that's well that's fatal then you're done yes and that and so is there something about ganji and o'neil that precludes that i believe so you're on a as well let me let me try to bring this to a point that i'm concerned about with the new york court of appeals had said what the appellate division's i think almost to a division there may be one does it seem to have sad we wouldn't be here arguing right i mean the new york court of appeals would have pronounced what the statute me i would agree that if the new york court of appeals addressed the issues here at the highest court in the state it would control under state lawyers taking you back to something that judge sullivan mentioned at the outset shouldn't shouldn't we at least consider certifying this to the new york court of appeals rather than pronounce what new york law is and what new york collateral estoppel principles are and a long standing body of case law that seems to say that employees or children they are not allowed to contract and they're not allowed to waive and you know this same rush like a small claims court is the people's court you know it's the most important court in the country in many ways and big and when they develop the statute it took into account that people who go there don't have attorneys they don't know much about the law and she didn't raise overtime when she found out about all these schemes or came also with respect to the cheeks issue one of the arguments that the mistake courts make is that somehow you're free to waive your claim like if you have two hundred thousand dollars in wages well you can we wouldn't come on that a five thousand jurisdiction jurisdiction monetary restrictions and just as important as the other one reserves sometime and unsatisfied with the judge and she attained their suit trans express again this time in federal court the district court properly dismissing his lawsuit as barred by rescue to me simmons argues that the dishes got it wrong because any one of three brief a few days ago sorry for the the the late time of that and you versus osaki and the court and you versus osaki edge rest the situation in which a fairly rich offer of judgment case right and that relies on a different rule that isn't applicable here and so that's the exception at least that's been is recognized to be the exception what distinguished it from the two cases i mention but this is not an offer of judgment is this is a straight claim preclusion case focused on the private settlement private secret settlement of fair labor standards act cases and the concern there was with the bargaining power the unequal bargaining power among employees versus employers and the concern that employers would  force employees into unfair settlements unless there was court approval and later it was a minute to provide deal approval as another option under the circumstances of this case we had a pla f demeaning her and all i was an unsophisticated who proceeds in small claims court right on represented and gets a sum of money via her proceeding in small claims court because she lee what will happen there explain its claim to them that their claims are limited to five thousand dollars and it's explained to them that if their claim is higher than five thousand dollars that they cannot split their claims into separate actions they will be limited to that one specific five thousand dollars claim and we understand that but if she had threatened to go to small claims court and the employer said ok fine will we'll cut you a check for a one thousand bucks  isn't that advice about how you can split your claims more logically red arrows saying to the plight of you you may not in small claims court bring three claims for five thousand dollars each because you have a total fifteen thousand dollars client especially given the language of the statute that has established a small claims procedure well that's what we're talking about here which is the rule against  what i'm talking about claims splitting within small claims court you have case twelve dollars and three dollars sitting before the small claims arbitrator each for five thousand dollars i want thirty five thousand dollars judgments because i brought three claims of the front of me the statute doesn't sense that you're not barred from bringing it bringing a claim you're just going to be suffering you will be subject to an offset if you've already got money here in small claims court situation where an employer let's say means a background or poor and that report contains incorrect information say about the disability that applicant may have and that employer doesn't give the individual the applicant a chance to address that in that incorrect issue and instead just says under ninety four employment that employee has two different causes of action employ you can sue for disability discrimination which could be brought in a state court including small claims court but the fair credit reporting act claim for failing to provide you with the opportunity to explain my background report that claim can only be brought in federal court but the damages are the same they're the same damage applies you didn't hire me i have lost wages not apply in this exact situation so a person who seeks to file a claim in small claims court in new york is a main is made aware that their damages will be kept to five thousand dollars and that they will be allowed to split their claims knowing this m strategic choice to sue in small claims court she should not be allowed to sue trans express again simply because she's not satisfied with that judgment subjecting tiffin it's to this type of potentially endless litigation attack is exactly what rescue t to prohibit so in the interest of fairness and for the reasons discussed today i would respectfully request that the district court's opinion be approved from the judge affirmed and if there are no further questions from the plaintiff would be required to pick a quarterback and handle all of our claims in one shot but the let me tell you why this language here is in there given the nature of small claims court is languages in there for a different situation we're acquainted for example is all the last two paychecks in the rent is due in in a month or two she's able to go to small claims court informally and quickly to recover that money while not having to bring a sexual harassment claim or a discrimination claim or a complex overtime claim or some other claim at the same time other landowners waiting for the rain that's the type of design that small claims division's have disagreed with what the purpose of the statute with your articulation of what i would agree that they have said that restaurant a car is allowed even under eighteen no wait i don't necessarily disagree with that we're i disagree is claims with common issues so i would suggest your honor given the language here is so powerful and clear that the court could rule in the plaintiff to be very easily but given the lack of clarity from the highest court in new york it may be wise to thousand dollars for negligence and you may decide you know what this is small claims court i'm not going to hire an attorney i'm going to you know i'm not going to fund this no way when it's only five thousand dollars and it was a finding of negligence in small claims court then it could potentially be a collateral estoppel effect against you of someone passenger number two brought a state court suit seeking a one million dollars in damages so this would the saying that there's no collateral stop or fact to small claims court decisions is potentially there to protect a defendant interpretation will also protect the defendant as well and the employer in those type of counter claim situations thank you and thank you thank you both will reserve decision in this case