are going for the apple ain't casey davis ishaan prominent each side will have up to twenty minutes for their argument on the air power will also have five minutes for each you will see the digital timekeeping device on my screen time has expired i illinois has already changed by recognizing that the illinois collection agency act was amended by the legislature to exclude private individuals from having a private right of action to seek money damages under the illinois  that only the department of professional regulation has standing to pursue civil violations under the collection agency act and that was a statement by the illinois supreme court and datacom systems a case that was decided in the primary purpose of this of this appeal and the the importance for it is that this is an opportunity for the court to provide clarity as to the state of the law in the state of illinois specifically honor the illinois collections aging act an act that has existed since the one thousand nine hundred and seventy seven and has been amended several times by the legislature to clarify and to focus the purpose and the intent that the legislature had in acting that statute in particular  it is the expressed intent of the legislature as expressed in the in the the amendments to the illinois collection or the i c a that only the department of financial professional regulation can assess civil penalties for violation of the i unfair practice under the illinois consumer fraud act and absent section nine point seven none of the sections mention the private individuals being entitled to money monetary relief in a lawsuit the legislature explore actually included individuals however the section nine and section four fifty nine point seven on the department and the attorney general in that same legislative act in one thousand nine hundred and nine section fourteen a was created which allowed any individual to file a lawsuit injunctive relief to prevent unlicensed activity within the state and that is if you will see that sum total of section i'm section nine the ex rests delineation of the department as the authority to enforce section nine for violations of the i c s not just the sections i see in section one refers to all the rules and regulations promulgated under this particular statute are all within the purview of the department their particular legislative act in which the legislature both identify the department the attorney general and any individual with the with respect to the the the appropriate venue for pursuing some type instructive and guides us here it's in that case the illinois supreme court recent that where the legislature has expressly provided a prior action in a specific section of a statute we believe the legislature did not intend to imply private rights of action to enforce other sections of the same statute and that's what we have here your honour's we have the legislature identifying that the only a provision under which an individual could go into court and and seek really seek some type of relief isn't junked of relief and that's under section section fourteen a individuals are not permitted under the statute to seek a proper writer action to recover money damages or to otherwise to enforce the i c a additionally the i see a express adopts the illinois administrative review act and in x and adopting the administrative or review act the supreme court hears also requires also quite destructive n l two x explains to us again in the metzger case that where a statute creating or conferring power on in a ministry of agency expressly adopts the administrative review law a circuit court has no authority to entertain an independent action and so we think that that the the combine and total of the clear amendments made by the legislature both in terms of section nine section four fifty nine point seven and fourteen a with the adoption of the administrative review law made under the gun as the supreme court makes it quite clear that the law has already changed and what we need is an individual to help a case to help clarify that in fact the law has already changed so this court really has a fairly easy job to do of acknowledging the changes that have already been identified and made in the law the legislature of attent  intent including the minister of review law as expressed by the law supreme court in the metzger case again is that they said thus in providing that the administrative review laws are political the legislature has demonstrated intent that no private right of no private that you have we have the statute that was the purpose they were all purpose is to protect consumers from from you know i'm going to excuse mike my comment speaking about bad acts and the purpose of the of the statute was to was actually to provide to protect the public through regulation and the regulation was created by the illinois legislature to do give the power to certain elements of the state to enforce these regulations to ensure compliance and the the main focus of whether or not the statute is is whether or not a private action could be inferred should be a part is whether the whether the available remedies under the statute as created by the legislature are sufficient to make compliance likely and that is that's the real that's the real test year and that's the real that's the real focus and under  the the laundry list of tools available to the department and the attorney general the the ability to assess monetary fines at the ten thousand dollars per violation by the department after hearing upon a review of the department the department also revoke licenses suspend licenses the attorney general can enforce certain provisions or certain violations of the statute under entirely separate  code as explicitly identified by the legislature we have a comprehensive legislative legislative regiment of in force mechanism to remedies to ensure compliance with the statute has been likely and going back to section fourteen a if you will the the the legislative the the full backstop to the understanding of the purpose of the statute to to ensure licensing and regulation is the fact that under fourteen a any person can file a private private cars action to enjoin unlicensed activity from happening in the state and that's that's a that's a clear indication of the legislature that regulation and licensing are the the  focus of the overall statute and it's and they delegated certain responsibilities or powers to particular actors of the state and no one else and under the legislative construction canons of legislative construction  legislation identify certain things or numerate certain rights or certain individuals do things there is no there there is this is there's the understanding that they excluded others and in this case it's pretty clear that the legislat provide for a a private right of action or a cost the apple even in this case has no legal cause of action upon which to seek certification of a class there is no as i said  there's no there there there's there's there's no there's no standing for the appellant to go into court and sue and to claim that there's a violation of the statute and to use a private lawsuit as an unfortunate mechanism for those violations the statu doesn't provide any remedy for an individual to seek whatever they may whatever damage they may think they have been caused by the activity because in fact under illinois law there are ample remedies already available to individuals who are sued in a court and don't think that they should be sued most obvious one is a motion to dismiss under sixty one night is a defect in the complaint the code of civil procedure allows someone to say hey there is a there is some reason that this lawsuit should not proceed and it gets to have a court you also have to someone thinks that they have been in appropriately sued there's the there's a tort for malicious prosecution and if someone feels that been wrongly sued  already provides the remedy for that type of attempt to address to address that state of illinois like the rest of the united states we have we live under the american system where the courts are open are open and people can bring causes of action to be heard but it doesn't mean just because someone's to bring a cause of action that they actually have a cause of action simply because someone files a lawsuit doesn't mean they have something that the court will recognize and in this case we know that the the court the lower court and under it and sort of find that particular class overstepped the made a mistake a mistake of law by having a classified based upon a private individual attempting to case in which it only side it's to the sherman case for the test that courts use for determining whether or not there is a prime right of action not for the proposition that there is a proper right of action under the illin a collection agency act that is that something gets there is no cause of action here and you know it's you can't have that and that was done by the illinois the illinois supreme court and barbour sales versus intel corp and that's in two thousand and seven where the court reversed classification because the plaintiffs claims were not actual under the illinois consumer fraud act and this was an operative that was a similar situation in which a a cause an action it went through the process the lower courts classes certified went up to the went  to review and the court said in reviewing this classification it's inappropriate that that's not actual under the illinois consumer fraud act we have the same situation here you're on us where you are presented with a with a clear case in which a there's a classification of a claim based upon a cause of action that the illinois law does not recognize for individuals there are years there are other points on the that we raise in the brief i'll touch on those briefly i don't want to belabor the point i mean i know that you've read the briefs and are familiar with issues i'll just touch on briefly the ones i think are most important and that is under the in this particular case the claim that was that was the the putative claim that was certified is essentially an a claim that section eight was not was not section eight b was not followed by the application attaching certain documents our fundamental made to help clarify that the that debt buyers are are to be exempt from any any requirements to comply with section b under the illinois collection agency act  like i said there are other parts there are other reasons why classification is not appropriate terms of the class representative as problems of predominance commonality and adequacy we detail those in our brief i will not go through all of those right here and now because i don't want to believe it belabor the issue and another there are few other issues but i will be happy to stop there too if there are any questions that you're honest would like me to try to answer in the time that i have left otherwise i'm  the previous rulings that were on the court those are all part of the procedural steps are bring us to this point here so under that you dish will doctrine of what's before the court and also to avoid any any potential claim later that we waive the issue we raised those in in the appeal that the the discovery certain was was over collusive and was far outside the needs of the case and also the issue of personal jurisdiction over one of the applebee's they withdrew from doing business well before the lawsuit was filed and so there is no basis for personal jurisdiction for them we detail that in the in the complainer order so for brevity sake if there's a more specific question why i don't feel like repeating things we've already said and good afternoon can you hear me just a thank you my name is sean cronin i represent the estate of the sierra on behalf of the illinois class that's been certified and we're here to ask you to affirm the order of this trial court granting this matter given the argument mr foster's given and the state of the record on appeal in this case i think a recitation of the procedural history is very much in order  what you would call challenges of debt which is basically a lot of spreadsheets with people's names on it via a document called the purchase agreement and then they mass to people in this case they have admitted in the t the class period where alleging they have sued thirty in excess of thirty four thousand illinois citizens in illinois course you will find that in the record because mr foster admitted that during hearings multiple times in front of the trial court they were very careful not to produce documentation that said that despite the fact that they were ordered to do so numerous numerous times not a single transcript from a single hearing in this case including a hearing on class certification is included on the record on appeal in addition three hundred and eighty three pages of exhibits that my client submitted in support of the motion for qwest certification is excluded from the record on appeal those documents are required by rule three hundred and twenty three to be included in the record on appeal and it is over the m b as the opponents responsibility to make sure the record is complete the record is far less than complete you don't have the exhibits the court base it's been you know on and you don't have the transcript which was an expensive hearing upon which to base its opinion and at which it extensively discussed the basi judge barbaric you asked how did the court address the i c a issue well i wish you knew that but you don't have the transcript because mr foster did not provide that to you what is completely absent from the record almost in its entirety is that there were nine motions for sanctions filed in this case six of them were granted you do not have the benefit of the transcripts of any of those hearings because they have not been included in the record you do not have the benefit of any of the exhibits we submitted in support of those motion because they have not been included in the record on top of the says sanctions motions that have been issued what you don't know is that retired district judge patrick murphy was appointed by the trial judge gleason  oversee discovery in this case at the cost of l the n v because of the the extent of their violations that the trial judge was literally at a loss as to what he could do to compel them to comply with discovery and i'm here to tell you they never ever did  they never produce documents with regard to the purchase agreement by which they say they purchased all these debts thirty four thousand of them mr to judge murphy was ineffective at convincing them to do so and judge grace was ineffective a convincing them to do so with regard to the motions to dismiss they talk about judge you're not going to see any of the orders on the motions to dismiss in fact they supplemented twice in this case the record this court graciously gave them permission to do so they never included the transcripts or the exhibits they excluded all the motions on the sanctions and all the transcripts regarding the sanctions hearing and then what they asked to supplement most recently was the order with regard to sherman financials personal jurisdiction issue and they supplemented with again the incorrect or they have completely failed to provide this court record and i would say that is consistent with what they did in the trial court with regard to their refusal to follow a court's orders and the rules of the supreme court with regard to discovery they wanted to conceal information from the trial court and they did and now they have similarly concealed from this court the information you would need to rule on whether or not judge gleason abused his discretion you can't possibly rule on that without a complete assignment to the point judge let me answer that with two answers section eight b was amended in two thousand and eight to include debt buyers ex expressly to include debt buyers with regard to all provisions of the i c a in two thousand and thirteen it was amended again to say well now that requirement to attack you simon does not apply to debt buyers that happened in two thousand are still collection agents that are required under a b to attach the assignment or at the very least to be in possession of an assignment the show's faulting the title when they file and again what you can't see judge is that mr foster behalf of l b n b and all three of these other defendants it mid to the court that they do not have assignments showing chain of title always back to the creditor they didn't want to include that on the record because they didn't want you to see that clarify the law of the n b a as a multibillion dollar company that sues thirty four thousand people in illinois every five years they really don't like consumer protection they use our court system to effectuate their deco action to turn bad paper into good judgments and they don't want people to have a remedy to go after them when they perpetrate their fraud on the court and again there's no question they did that here they admit when they filed it they knew they couldn't prove it that's the nature of the violation and in nineteen to enforce the i c a under the illinois consumer fraud act there's nothing about that amendment that expressly overrules it when we supreme court's ruling that there's an implied private right of action in fact i would argue it just broadens  ability of the state in conjunction with private citizens to enforce the i c a and the reason they did that and if you read the press release from the attorney general that we cite in our briefing is that debt buyers have become such a problem they specifically added that to give another way for the state to get a remedy against that buyers because they're such a problem they've been committing fraud in illinois courts and you don't have to take my word for it you can look at the a g i office findings and you can look at what the federal reserve or financial protection bureau has been finding that there's now no private rack right of action is that every time a legislator amend their presume to know what the supreme court the appellate courts have held and they had expressed we hope there's an implied private right of action under this act but that was the intention of the legislator when they when they passed it in one thousand nine hundred and seventy seven they never expressed we overrule that and they're supposed to know about it they do know about it and they had every opportunity when they were doing these expensive amendments to say by the way there's no longer a private right of action of the act they didn't do unlicensed debt collector is collecting in illinois but that doesn't affect all the other violations under section nine a statute of limitations makes no sense unless it applies to illinois citizens and here's why we are used to  off and i'm very familiar with there's an alternative the time does not want to give us the can and i do not recall how to pronounce that in latin but what it means is statutes of limitations don't run against the state so they don't run against the department of regulation they don't do that they don't run against the attorney general's office on behalf of the state they don't and so a statute of limitations provided by the weather slater ninety five of five years can only be intended to apply to private cause of action civil being brought in st they said in that particular case under the personnel code i'm sorry of the personnel code they were trying to find out if there's a private cause of action and they said there isn't there and they went through the original four factors the record went through you know by the way no one had previously determined whether there was a private cause of action of the personnel code which has happened here forty years ago so this was the st time issue for the personal and they went to those four elements and they decided there wasn't an implied private cause of action intended by the legislature precisely because people still had a remedy in ministry to flee they have the right to report their complaints and have a proceeding administratively before and mistreat a body and they have a right to personally get a remedy by that administrative body and then appeal that issue that is not true here one of the i c a administrate of review act applies them to the i c a only with regard to the department of professional regulation when they passed that by the way they removed section ten of the i c a which had previously given citizens the right to file complaints directly to the department now it never provided them a remedy so what you have here is just as it was true in and seventy nine when sherman was decided in the supreme court subsequently upheld that there is still no direct remedy for a citizen of the united states which had a violation committed against him by dec lector under section nine or section eight feet they don't even have the ability to report it to anybody and even if they do report they can participate in the process and they don't get a personal remedy for that so as was true then is true now there is no remedy so the analysis has not changed and the legislator must know that because otherwise they would have overtly over rules sherman and they chose not to do so if there's no more questions about the r c a s going to try to cover some of the other issues to this i c a issue which again they're asking you to change the law i don't think there's jurisdiction for me to even consider it they they're doing this under a partial class certification and what they're asking for is in quote clarification under their protection for leave to appeal they don't ask for anything else in the petition for leave to appeal this court's jurisdiction when someone files a petition for leave to appeal is based on what they asked to appeal this court graciously utilized its discretion and gave them leave to appeal here and what you were rewarded with after that was their trying to use a trojan horse method to take a one million other issues that were not in the petition for leave to appeal when you had to rule on it and now force it into your jurisdiction and try to get you to rule on all those things i when i had to respond to the petition for leave to appeal only knew they wanted to people one issue so i was hamstrung in responding to it and this court was hamstrung because they didn't identify other issues so the fact that they were trying to bring in twelve other issues is because only an appropriate i think it was intended partially to make sure i had to break fifty four pages and avoid the one issue they really want to address so i don't think there's jurisdiction in addition i i hate to beat a dead horse but the record is incomplete on every single one of those issues with regard to every sanctions hearings of the dismissal hearings and most importantly of the hearing on class serve and so they don't get to argue these things in this court doesn't have to address them for both of those  reasons they are required it is their burden to make sure that a complete record in illinois case law it's black letter law that this court doesn't have jurisdiction and should not does not have the ability to review based on abuse of discretion standard when you've been given an inadequate record to review how could you possibly know if judge would use an abused his discretion with regard to any of those orders many of which you don't even have when you don't have the evidence that was submitted to him or the hearing transcript or all the overall argument was made i would submit they don't want you to see it because we'll never know why they didn't do it is why you don't have to review any of these things and in fact don't have the ability to properly review these thing judge they addressed  all of the elements of class certification under you know one they chose not to argue those today i would say that they're waving that there briefing is inadequate in that regard against their petition for leave to appeal did not address those elements traditionally a petition for leave to appeal when you're challenging class certification you would identify which of those elements commonality to patellar the numerosity that you're appealing and then you would only get to appeal those issues they did not include any of those issues in their petition for leave to appeal not a single was a private cause of action according to sherman and that had never been overruled and the legislator had not specifically overrule that so that's another example of a part of the record that you do not have where was actually initially decided and i can tell you what your you don't know i that at the hearing on class certification it was discussed extensively that the judge had already ruled on the extensive briefing in oral argument on the motions to dismiss about the i c a issue and you have also been deprived of that and you have to take my word for it the judge gleason partially based is opinion on that briefing and transcript if you don't have either of those transcripts i would suggest that if that is intentional  judge i think i'll just rest my briefing and if you have any other questions or be happy to answer them every time and now right now you're from coun the point is that the law changed and the legislature changed the law and all this court has to do is to recognize the change that the legislature wrote into the statute in one thousand nine hundred and ninety eight and the s doesn't have to change the law the laws already changed with respect to counsel's citation of the i believe it's section i'm sorry my memory is missing the obvious here which is that the only private right direction cause of action in civil court that's allowed on the statute is an individual going into court to seek injunctive relief that's a civil action that individual to seek injunctive relief that somehow there's something else that's to be read into the statute where doesn't exist that's that's that's the judiciary rewriting the the ledger the laws created by the legislature and that's to all the orders and other things that we don't have in the record well now if you're under you do have a complete record to rule upon is the issue of the i c a and the prime right of action is is a is a question of law review did novo and you have the twenty three page opinion by the circuit court judge explaining his basis and his reasoning for the for that for the finding that he made specifically in that ruling that order that there is a private  cause of action so his basis of explaining what that was was was in his order and that's the order which were peeling the with respect to the counsel's argand's about the record regarding other hearings and other issues there were there were numerous hearings in eurasia the the one that we brought to the attention of not all of them are are here as part of them the appeal but rather the one involving the a personal just action which court to produce millions upon millions of pages of documents despite the evidence being presented to the court in the record regarding the just for disproportionality of that to the cause or to the issue at hand it goes back to the  hearings under this particular regulatory scheme that the department has the exclusive right to enforce and with that i have thirty seconds left i would want to thank you for your time your honors it's been an honor thank you very much