money to pay anybody so but then that's the that claim is for is for compensation for services that already had been performed except for services going forward well that's true which makes a difference being i was baffled by your theory it sounded like any time one party to a contract decides they've run out of money there is no longer any obligation to the other party and actually what happens in those instances if there's litigation is judgement gets entered and then the person when the money becomes a judgment debtor and in the fullness of time pays the judgment maybe not the next day if they don't really have money and if they file for bankruptcy something else happens that are running out of money isn't a reason not to pay for services you've received as a practical matter it is no it isn't not a legal response well it's a legal reason is with view of that or if i have somebody come home i log on and i say i'm sorry i've run out of money actually of her series of laws about that but you know i still owe them the money for my own lawn and your client  was obviously working on this big project and it's a shame if they ran out of money but the debt remains to the workers who had already perform services as a practical matter though there's no way which the that that will ever be repaid in this case i haven't the parent this case from the lawyer who had it on the day after joe's room was centered this is discovery sanction so going of money and if they're if you were standing here telling me that a bankruptcy had been filed and nobody had filed a claim in the proper amount of time or something like that that would be a different matter altogether well in effect that's what happened here but it conclusions of law from the bench trial they would be to the end of your brief in which on page two depend your your brief says there are four things in the appendix the judgment on attorney's fees and cost judgment dated september one memorandum opinion of september sixteenth two thousand and fourteen and the first amended complaint the findings of fact in conclusions of law are not there the opinion of twenty thirteen is not there and yet you certified to this court that everything required by the rule is there what do you think we should do in response to this well i was under the impression that is there at under any impression how did you get an impression brief i was under the impression that they were there how did you get an impression contrary to your own brief that you prepared this brief i did that your name is on the circuit roll thirty days statement right and that that was certainly what i thought had happened and i apologize if that is not we have a rule in civil case that a lawyer falsely represents but essential documents have been included the appeal is dismissed as a sanction is there any reason why we shouldn't carry out that normal procedure here  i don't think it would be in keeping with the desire to have cases decided on their merit we also desire to have lawyers be honest with the court filing a false statement under rule thirty d is not desirable behavior and dissent in a venti with regard to the merits the the truck carriage aired in taking the three plaintiffs and applying the lies if they were all the same whereas mr bester b s t are in fact was an independent contractor because he met all the criteria so so not to beat a dead horse but but the rich one of the reasons we asked for these documents to be included in the brief as is a short appendix attached of three is because there is actually almost nothing more important in the case tried to the court than the district court's findings of fact and conclusions of law to be asked to decide that the district judge has made a mistake on either of those fronts if there are clearly erroneous facts or erroneous conclusions of law you need to see what the district judge said and how the district judge did it and it's i will concede it's possible to root around in the in the files and find these things but we're busy and we require them to be in the brief for good reason i notice by the way the true brief does not contend that any of the findings is clearly wrong yes indeed your brief doesn't mention that there were any your brief doesn't mention anything the district court did after its order of tw which was also not attached in the appendix  a collection act after two rounds of this motion for summary judgment and then after a two day bench trial the district court found that the plaintiffs were employees as well as well under the fair labor standards act and the i am to you all and i  a dozen titling them to those benefits as well it was a challenging exercise for plaintiffs to prepare their response to this appeal because it was unclear what decisions exactly defendant appellants were appealing however based on the statement of the issues contained in appellant's brief there are two and only two issues before this court today whether the district court committed clear error in finding that plaintiffs establish the causal link between their damages and defen decision in the second motion for summary judgment order so because the defendants already prevailed on this issue we don't believe that it is before the court today and is not one that we will be discussing as of the first issue classified plaintiffs as independent contractors and they do not deny that they failed to pay plaintiffs overtime and earned wages again defendants earlier in in their statement alluded to the sacred heart project as the reason why they didn't pay for or earned wages or overtime however the claims in plaintiff's lawsuit also included a work that was prior to the sacred heart project this is something that defendants it's your honor it's nonpayment of wages in addition to unemployment compensation worker's compensation benefits and minimum wages and overtime wages write a causal link requirement is absent from the statutory scheme as i understand it they're just debt enforcement mechanisms yes that i mean the debt arises after the services are performed that's current under the obligation to pay i should say it's  doesn't arise because of some other independent pong which might require a causal link there just isn't one in the statutory scheme under any of these statutes that's correct your honor i know that defendants are alluding to the be by reason of  the for the violation under the e c to try to resolve this causal link but it is our belief that you know such a standard exists here that there is no requirement for the plaintiffs to demonstrate the intent of  employer and the failure to compensate them for overtime or unpaid wages or the other wages right it's almost as if a misclassification creates strict liability for the employees wages  t in in a way so if even if it there's some other element of customization working in the back that spec story but i'm i would i would agree with i believe that you know such as like for the employee under that act you know you're entitled to those benefits that the other employees are under the i and of you well therefore you're in for work that you've already performed yes that's michael mechanics lean in some sense it's just a different kind of work ye employees instead of having to prove that their employees are indeed it is the burden of the defendant to prove that they are independent contractors something that defendants did not do either around a summary judgment or at the bench trial at the performance of the services gives rise to the presumption of employees status as i understand yes statutory language yes so the way that that you see is unless you meet the three factors or the one  and so i'll just move on to the second issue is that defendants stay in their brief that plaintiffs were independent contractors solely because they work for other employers however this argument is only three sentences long in their brief and neither of the sentences do they cite any case law to support their argument and in either of those sentences do they cite to the record to support their argument indeed one sentence says that the record contains numerous examples without citing to a single  one it is not the court's job to scour the record looking for evidence to support defendants position and because just the argument is not fully developed and would require the court to scour the record for grounds for reversal we believe it is therefore waive and should not be considered by th court however even if your honour's considered defendant's argument the records of course the district court's conclusion that plaintiffs are employees in today's modern economy it is not unusual for an employee to have more than one job and the illinois department of labor regulations for the e c a account for its situation furthermore the test to determine whether a worker is an independent contractor working for another employer is just one factor out of three under the i by the lack of substance to the opponents arguments for the foregoing reasons we asked that this court affirmed the judgment of the district court find the appeal to be frivolous and grant the plaintiff's motion first thank chance for reasonable attorneys fees and costs unless there are other question thank you thank you i said mr mcneil you have about a minute but it's up to you you can use it or not if the employee knowingly permits the corporation that he or she works for and the willfulness requirement there has to do with