a debtor owed money and didn't didn't pay at a certain time they put him in prison it was called debtors prisons the liberty of the other debtor was hailed as security for pay grounds for not allowing must or would you to have stated in your reason he struck that cause of action if in the course of the district judge struck our whole response thirteen where harvey agreed to pay one million five hundred thousand dollars to j s to repay the debt he also agreed to pay three hundred one thousand dollars to the district attorney a dispute in the record though at least in the briefing i should say not in the record but whether that was paid or not do you maintaining that mr harvey paid that or a portion of that i guess i'm going back to what you had john i just asked where is the injury what did he paying twenty currently at that time paying twenty five thousand dollars to jazz two thousand a month to the dia de amazing outside the record but i mean we have cancel court that the dispute it's september of two thousand and eleven mr harvey's just leading quick leading up to that  september of t n harvey mr orgreave wife of thirty two years he began gambling probably to the excess in resulted in a substantial debt to the casinos reason of probable cause at the time the casino actually entered an agreement to prosecute own september the th and that's after mr harvey had gone to going to meet with them after the argument about liberty and debtors prisons what do we have in terms have to do with that we have thirty three causes of action abuse of process list prosecution and false arist all of which are based own of the they their rights to the to the to the d a s office and requested prosecution under the worthless shit the worthless check statute requires two elements in the instigator in the casinos never checked his bank account never never checked his borrowing ability so they didn't have proof of either element they were they continued that court struck the they never mentioned elements of the criminal statute we're we're dealing with here the merits maybe i'm misunderstanding this but i thought the district court dismissed this on the ground stand prosecution and false arrest arising out of prosecuting and then they instigated it they agreed and requested the da to prosecute after being told that before the before the chicago to make a claim in the bankruptcy court that was in the the bankruptcy lawyer for jazz represented only daughters he wrote he said he represented only me before your time runs out we may come back to that but with regard to the pre judgment interest it seems like the district judge entitled the march and treat as a final judgment what authority is there that we should disregard the district court's designation of the final judgment and move that date up to the date of the summary judgment what is your best case that says we can do that there's only only compound interest argument that they're not entitled that robinson isn't entitle to recover they didn't call a judge's instructions to allocate their due to only the contract was with his contract was with rob's a property group only in he the judge place to court your honors and paul white can see here today on behalf of caesar's entertainment operating group robinson property group the cross appellant in this case in jazz casino company which owns and operates the here as well and i'd like to start by trying to address a few of the points that claim that the louisiana worthless check statutes are unconstitutional to the extent they allow the district attorney to collect a fee ever for each worthless check that they process and collect that's what the statute says the questions about probable cause and malicious prosecution are separate tort law claims this is the staining relates to the federal claims of the district court did hold that mr harvey didn't have standing to pursue that federal claim the constitutionality klein but he addressed the state law claims on their merits now with respect to mr harvey's new or human that he actually was made to pay the full amount of the district attorney fee or now a reduced amount one hundred and seventy thousand dollars i think mr one hundred and seventy thousand dollars is certainly not in the record and i think it's important to point out here mr harding never argued before his rebuttal brief in this court that he had to pay anything above the one point five million dollars mr harvey at his own deposition because of it is insufficient funds or no funds to support it or in the circumstances i understand here where the check is funded but a stop payment is requested we have  authority in our brief your honor louisiana state law that says stop payment checks can fall under the worthless check statute that i guess the technical answer your question is yes there is a difference because the facts surrounding that circumstance are going to be different but the louisiana i think the louisiana supreme court has held that you can issue a check that you later stop payment on with the intent to defraud you they distinguish between fraud as in i'm passing a check that i know is worthless at the time i pass it and fr as in i incurred a dad and i paid with a check that was sufficiently funded however now i'm going to prevent that check from being honored of your i don't recall there's discussion of that in that particular case that we've cited but i would submit that no matter how the check becomes dishonored you can have fraudulent at any point in the process and the statute would apply regardless that's correct your addressing the again the standing issue the court should not accept mr harvey's outside the record representations that he had to pay one hundred and seventy thousand dollars an amount that never appeared in the record because he never contended that but your honors at the end of the day the casino never received any amount of district attorney fees the casino received at best the one million five hundred thousand dollars face value that mr harvey admits and admitted that he owed it so even if mr harvey was correct that the statute that allows the da to collect a fee when a collection process is a worthless check is unconstitutional it's not a constitutional with respect to a private entity that didn't benefit from it anyway in any way he can't collect that fee from us the employee jazz casino company filled out a worthless check affidavit your honor that listed the the specific more powers that mr harvey had signed and signed it over to them mr alcott mentioned a minute ago the agreement to prosecute there's a form at the bottom of the affidavit that says i understand that the district attorney has the discretion whether or not to prosecute and how to go forward with this and that they are now responsible for collecting paying i also want to point out your honor the separate apart from the standing issue whether mr harvey can redress his injury through the casino which he can mr harvey neither in rebuttal nor stand before this court has  accompanies organs as to the substantive unconstitutionality of the statute this statute does not allow the district attorney to mandate that anyone pay a fee it doesn't give them contempt thorney it doesn't say anywhere fee is actually set in stone as a matter of law it says the district attorney may collect a fee when it processes and collects on a worthless check now if the person who's accused of passing a worthless check contends that they don't know the face value of the check they don't have to pay the district attorney anything they can proceed with the criminal process which is it is exactly what mr harvey did for a period of time he litigated in criminal court up until the point that he entered into the restitution agreement with the district attorney's office the cases that mr harvey cites in his primary brief this is the to me and word line of cases from the supreme court all deal with public officials who have  courts justices of the peace there's an optometry board that has the ability to enter sanctions in two d bar people from the practice of optometry the statute simply doesn't give the district attorneys in louisiana that authority now mr harvey  argued that it may be the case that after a conviction a court can come back and assess the da face but if a court is assessing a fee that's payable to a district attorney a separate entity but doesn't raise an impermissible risk of bias as warning to me said that the mayor's courts in that case do so even if the district court was incorrect that mr harvey didn't have standing to challenge this lawsuit and even if mr harvey's injury was redress a bill from the defendants that he's chosen to proceed against the statute is not substantively unconstitutional because nothing in that statute gives the prosecutor's adjudicative authority to make a decision and assess  i'm trying to understand his claim you're i mean against the casinos the casino gave to the district attorney it worthless check to collect over to the to the district attorney yes or you're out of mind which team is that the claims to the constitutionality of the district attorney page and state law claims both have to do with the fact that the casino turned over the worthless checks to the district attorney's already if we held that the statute were unconstitutional grace's relief coming from that of the declaration that it is  in the district court with respect to the state law tort claims your honor mr harvey claimed reputational damages i think there was a claim for damages related to the sale of a business that he had all related to their fallen  was no probable cause for the casino to turn that over to the district attorney's office the the that and there's a ten day presumption in louisiana law like there is under mississippi law and many other states that if you give a person notice that check they wrote you has been returned and give them an opportunity to pay they can pay and make good on it but the statute also says that if they don't pay your entitle to presume that they that the ten day start starts when the letter gets put in the mail not when you receive it and if the letter was dated as mr harvey says september nd and the d a didn't seek an arrest warrant until september rd that's much longer than ten days but it's important also remember that  wrote the check and stop payment on the check months but he stopped payment the check in july he had written it in april so he certainly knew at the time that the dispute arose that he had written the check and that it had had not gone through because he had stopped it from going through his is his claim also include argument that there is a difference between a check for insufficient funds and stop payment judging a in our brief your honor because mr harvey had not made this argument in its primary brief but the casino certainly had probable cause to turn the check over to the d a s office again he had known mr harvey was well aware about the status of the check and when we asked mr harvey why he stopped payment on the check he said he objected to the casino dropping it right on time and not giving him a few days to pay he also said he told an employee of the casino that it would screw up markers it could screw up my credit they certainly have reason to believe that he knew there wasn't sufficient money in the account at some point to cover the check and even if the tendai presumption had not arisen that would be probable cause enough to have turned it over to whoever they needed to turn it over to the more fundamental point with the malicious prosecution claim that your honor is this prosecution did not terminated mr harvey's favor you have to show that you won that you prevailed on the underlying criminal case in order to proceed on the mound prost claim and in this climate in this case the record is clear mr harvey entered into a restitution agreement now in rebuttal and this is again an argument he made for the st time on rebuttal he says that the no process that the was actually related to the merits of the case because they didn't think there was any reason that the charges should go forward there's not evan know evidence that in the record the dean ever said that the criminal court docket didn't reflect that pages thirty one  are there are many more defendants other bojo below my understanding is the appeal has come up against the jazz casino company which is the entity that owned and operated the here's new orleans and caesar's entertainer operating company which is that's correct your honor below mr harvey conceded the summary judgment stage that twelve of the seventeen defendants had no place in the litigation there was no claim against them and he later said in discussing the attorney fees application there were four primary defendants but he only denied robinson's application for attorney fees after it awarded summary judgment in favor of robinson in its entirety and it would not be unfair or an equitable for the court to issue an award of attorney fees in this case the underlying facts are undisputed ask you to parse that out into those that were recovered and those that either war or not or arguably or not yes your honor that the district court did ultimately hold that robinson that was not going to get an attorney feel were because it saw fees that were attributable to other defendants and not soley robinson so as i mentioned a minute ago there were seventeen named defendants in this case mr harvey's pleadings pled a widespread conspiracy among all of them it didn't separate out any claims against any particular defendants so they all had a common interest throughout the litigation one law firm represented all of those defendants throughout the entire litigation and we have undisputed affidavit proof in the record in support of our fee application that from the very start of the litigation the attorney bills went to caesars entertainment operating the central processing entity they were paid they are in they were internally allocated to robinson now robinson at this time was the only defendant that had to pursue a counter it was the only one that actually had to litigate to get its money back the other two casino entities had repayment agreements that came through the district attorney's office now the district court criticized the way the fees were allocated but it's undisputed that they fact allocated that way that robinson paid all of the attorney fees in this matter because we were defending numerous defendants seventeen different defendants we didn't perform one task seventeen different times  perform to your point that if robinson had been the only litigant the fees would have been basically the same i think that's correct your honor now it's true that there were some tasks that were performed that benefited other defendants to the exclusion of robinson and where those segregated yes your honor by the time we got or said that in the district court when some of those test out and it's st to attorney fees rulings we went back mainly manually reviewed those billings and removed about seventy thousand dollars of attorney fees that were arguably unrelated  robinsons but at the end of the day are asked of about four hundred and fourteen thousand dollars wrote down the fees work partition in a way that was particular to defense they just they worked but of the four hundred and fourteen thousand dollars or so that we saw  only twenty two thousand dollars or so related to work that was performed related to robinson only and that would have been related to not instance counterclaim robinson had a separate summary judgment motion with respect it's counterpoint so there were some of those claims but it was a very small amount of the total the district court did correctly hope that robinson was entitled to an award of fees also for the fees incurred in defending against mr harvey's claims because without defending those d could have gotten the judgment it  tell me about the enforcement of the settlement issues it seems as though the district court held that it did not have jurisdiction to consider enforcement of the settlement are you in agreement with that or  position that jurisdiction or no there was no settlement to be enforced i think i'd be in agreement with both of them with the caveat your honor that i think the district court could certainly decline to exercise  district court looked at the state of the record realize that it had dismissed all of the claims three and a half years prior and determined that at that point there was no live issue before the court a headache entered a final  by that time over those just rulings in the record that disposed of claims that needed to be put into a judgment your honor my recollection is that at the time the final judgment was entered mr ad pops motion to enforce the settlement was pending at that time i think he ruled on that motion after the final judgment was entered we also do maintain there was no settlement agreement reached there is no signed settlement mr mr alcott references in his brief there's a separate state court action that's ongoing now related to the enforceability of that settlement and i just point out that in his briefs mr harvey doesn't argue to this court the merits of the actual settlement agreement and what the relative facts were he just ask for a clarification on the jurisdictional issue and we would submit that clarification is necessary because there's nothing that requires the district  take you we have your argument mr ed koc you have reserved five minutes for a bottle thank you very quickly of the addressing the attorneys for the issue of the is basically a collection action what do you make of his point though that they approached the litigation essentially as if whether was one party or seventeen parties it was the same legal work because it was all one robinson it would been it would have been exact same legal work there other than that seven hundred and eleven deposition of robinson property groups got barber the casino manager that's that's the only deposition was taken related to the roms and property  is from a lawyer kirkland analysis we will accept the offer will draft up a settlement agreement is that the e mail exchange are talking about yes but the the attorney came back there was there remit they came back and said we can't settle for the with any we've got to settle dismissing the whole federal court case and the city but so you're focused on the word we will accept the offer yes ok but what do you make of the very next sentence will dr settlement agreement they were there they were in the parties were in agreement in they they were going to draft a so much agreement but they seizures came back in said look we this disagreement is not for anything less than settling with the people we they said they didn't represent which are the current appalachians and what i think the best way to read this is especially as accepting the offer in principle but obviously the e mail specifically says we need to draft  instigates the whole process they don't they they would not have prosecuted mr harvey but for the affidavit in a green thank you the case is submitted will call up