will county the circuit court ruled against the plaintiff the issues of duty proximate cause and damages and will address those issues today with respect to the issue of duty your honor your honors the court stated that and i quote there is not facts under which the court finds that a common law u t runs from lakeside to plaint occurred during the scope of employment and there must be a causal link between the hiring a lawyer and the alleged damage the problem with that of course your honour's is that we did not have to allege that the gambling activities occurred during the scope of his employment but these are direct claims against the bank mr here is not before you go one could you explain why we have employment here why we have employment yes yes well the allegation and all well pleaded facts we believe are taking us true for purposes of this motion and we have alleged employment and we have alleged the steps that he takes and half of the bank we have course never got into discovery to determine what if anything else he had done but the allegations are that he essentially raise another issue that we take with the court's ruling on duty is that the court relied upon this unpublished opinion the rodriguez versus moreau case m a r r e r o that was the only case cited by the bank at the hearing on their motion to dismiss and yet they argue in this appeal that the court didn't rely upon it even though that was the only case they argued about  unpublished opinion in its own opinion as a as a quote unquote reasonability check and for an example of another court holding similarly that's entirely different than what happened here in our case where a party cited an unpublished opinion to the court used that as the only case they argued at the hearing and the court relied upon we think it was improper for the bank to cite the case and we think it was improper for work to rely upon but if you actually look at that case getting to the substance of that rodriguez case is distinguishable anyway because in that case the plaintiff was alleging that the bank had violated certain know your customer regulations that were designed to generally stop money laundering the plaintiff in that case did not allege that he was specifically part of a protected class of individuals that the statute was designed to protect here in our case we cite to the unlawful internet gambling enforcement act which specifically identifies unlawful internet handling as a particular cause of concern for banks and as for the consumer credit industry in general and we allege that john webb the plaintiff is a consumer as that term is defined in the implementing regulations up a special statute that he's a member of the class that the statute was enacted to protect he was duped he was defraud and he had money stolen from him these are these are allegations that remain in the rd amended complaint by a bookmaker over the internet that's the exact situation that the u n g a was enacted to prevent that that 's we have much more specific details than the plaintiffs had in that rodriguez case and the fact of the matter is lakeside banks dropped the ball at every step the bookmaker was employed by the bank he's still employed by the bank they were loaning him millions of dollars throughout this entire process so and additionally our honors if you look at paragraph sixty one of our rd amended complaint that's contained on page and thirty three of the record we allege that this specific duty owed from the bank to web to i are to consumers generally to identify and stop on lawful internet gambling is distinguishable from any other general duty that may be out there to stop money laundering ponzi schemes etc under federal law i don't know if those it was an error from the circuit court to rely upon it whether that violated rule twenty three dollars or not more importantly and getting to the heart of the duty analysis  here we think the circuit court ignore the two illinois supreme court cases that we cited in response to the motion to dismiss those two cases where ben curragh can't risk to eighty eight illinois nd through fifty two and both of those cases the illinois supreme court held that were a defendant violates legislated rules and plaintiffs who belongs to the class intended to be protected by those rules may recover upon establishing that the defendants proximately caused their injuries there were procedural differences in those two cases in iowa which is the older case parents  school children sued the board of education for violations of the school code they were using the statute as a predicate for a tort action but they were trying to establish a private right of action under this statute to force the board of education to do what they think what they thought the board of education was supposed to have done the court did find a private right of action under this in that case the plaintiff brought negligent training and negligent supervision counts against tito's for and employees by elations of the notary public and and that's what have here where we're alleging there was a common law duty of care that was owed to the plaintiff under a negligence theory in ben curran the court built upon an essentially confirmed the exact same theory that was expressed court earlier and that was that a statute can set the standard of conduct required by a reasonable person and if a defendant violates those legislated rules a plaintiff who belongs to the class it was intended to be protected may recover upon establishing that the defendant's conduct was a proximate cause of his injuries we have alleged that john webb belongs to the class that was intended to concerns related to unlawful internet gambling and that's exactly what was going on in this case lakeside bank had a specific statutory duty to identify and stop this gambling but they didn't do that alleged that when belonged to the class that was intended to be protected so we think that gets us to the duty and we think that he can recover if you can prove through proximate c dollars that was a case where the the minor was sexually assaulted by a youth pastor and then her parents brought negligent supervision claims against the church and the illinois supreme court found that in deciding whether a duty exists a court will consider the foreseeability of the foreseeability of the plaintiff's injuries the likelihood of the occurrence the magnitude of the burden of guarding against it and the consequence of placing that burden on the defendant in our case the magnitude of the burden of guarding against the situation that occurred here and the consequences of placing that burden upon the bank are minimal if not nonexistent because that dubious already prescribed by federal law they already they already have to identify and stop on lawful internet gambling under federal law they can't deny that they have an obligation so the burden is minimal the the real issue is the foreseeability of the injuries that we've alle plaintiff here and the likelihood that those injuries would occur and that ties and said the next you know part of the argument relating to damages in this case there's a glaring contradiction in the record that highlights the error made at the circuit court level here you'll recall and the court is aware that there is a whole nother portion of this case going on and at the through these websites held these websites out to be licensed and legal sports books and the allegations with respect to the conversion count are that there was money placed on deposit through this website into an on line escrow account that had not been gambled yet it was it was money on deposit that was sitting in an account mr ryder rosso allegedly terminated my client's access to that a cow cut off his access to the website and stole that money so we are out money other than what was gambled with the money had not been gambled so the inconsistency here is that  well when we look at for see ability it's entirely for seeable and likely that when you're dealing in this world of unlawful internet gambling which is entirely under regulated quite frankly most of the time facts to continue on with our fraud cow and there was money stolen from my client so it's entirely forseeable that these things would happen if a bank didn't abide by its obligations under federal law to cut off this illegal gambling operation and that also ties and you know the court ruled that we couldn't allege damages against the bank that the court specifically said that we were attempting to create a fail safe gambling strategy in the circuit court's opinion if my client would have won he wouldn't suit if he lost he sues the bank according to the circuit court my client was going to try to recover his money either way but the  court to save him from himself the sceptically he wants a bank to pay him money he lost gambling because the bank did not discover that funds in one of his clients accounts was purportedly related to these gambling activities the honorable judge lose any money because the hosts of those websites would have to be reimbursed any losses they incurred in other words heads i think ambler win and tails you the hosts lose in the trial level judge ravi dismissed  was a result of his participation in admittedly illegal activities but the trial court's ruling to be reversed here today appellate must demonstrate the truck or in each of these determination this appellant cannot do like and according to plaintiff is brief does that quote a minimum standard of conduct required of lakeside under federal law according to appellate lakeside over him a duty of care under these regulations as miss eunice you've been pointed out the truck or disagreed in the trial court is absolutely correct reliance on these regulations to impose the private or claim a lakeside must fail st there's no language in either statute that explicitly provides a private right of action and several courts and how that ny the regulation extends such rights by implication we cited four of those cases in our pre as well as in the underlying proceedings that is high risk you know bank in re palm as a check versus twenty three if that kid should not have been cited or can't be relied upon it can be stricken as he did in the lower court saying i only talked about one case rodriguez that's not true the record reflects that i made reference to multiple cases on this plume certainly would allow it or to cite it itself but i also cite in my lower case or in my pile of readings today brinkley versus brinkley and wallace versus county mutual insurance although on page ten of my response brief which make clear that you pro create remedy was right provides upon that one case in which case i almost have a half dozen other cases on point as well but even more important than that in an attempt to avoid the effect of those cases said it distinguish between what federal courts do in state courts do and it said specifically with respect to illinois the right to pursue a tort claim based on a violation of a statute is only appropriate upon satisfaction of he does say that his client is a member of the class to be protected but then you go on from there the other four prods specifically mentioned in your law and rogers and every case on this point say step to the private actions consistent with the underlying purpose of the statute step three a plaintiff's injury is the one is one the statutes designed to prevent and most of court me stuff or the private action is necessary to provide an adequate remedy for violations of the statute if a private claim by a gambler to go after a bank recovers losses is it necessary to provide an adequate remedy for the violation of the statute than the negligence claims not appropriate when you apply no you all at the pla he does not allege that his private right of action to recover gambling office is consistent with the purpose of the statute nor does he allege that injury is the one the statutes designed to prevent and most telling he does not allege his claim is necessary to provide an adequate remedy and it's not it's absolutely unnecessary this was recognized by the cases we cite the u i ga imposes criminal penalties on violator banks who don't comply with the statute it provides state and federal to bring civil proceedings to enjoin transactions prohibited under the statute and it provides federal regulatory in force of mechanism these are all remedies the statute already provides for the ability of a gambler to go through the bank to get his losses back does not seem necessary and i'll also point out to you appellant did have a statutory right to recover his losses in a civil action against the winner of those wages that would be mr either rossa under the g l so i don't believe if you look at the four corners of the complaint a plaintiff alleged the bishop allegations to extend the duty of care of the bank on to him based on its failure to comply alleged failure to comply with the b s a or  just close to recognize the policy gamblers would be enticed to gamble more if they could lose money so they can go to a rd party like a web site operator to get their money back the same is true in this case unsuccessful gamblers are able under the g l to recover their losses from where's this courtney not expand those rights to also a lot of game was to a bank whose aunt may have been deposited in the in their in their accounts use so it only encourage more a lot more gambling of providing gamblers with one more way to hedge their bets so for that reason the court should affirm a lower court's ruling on duty with respect to proximate cause and there's a difference here between proximate cause and duty the trial court dismissed the case as well proximate c quote injuries were proper i reasoned of the employment of the unfit employee not just to the employee by the law but is the hiring of this employee the reason that the individual playing to suffer damages in this case the pleadings make very bank he was an outside director but unfortunately with the pleadings that there are alleged it's difficult for us to accept not accept the allegations is true with that said we know here from the complaint paragraphs thirty four through forty three his capacity as an employee of the church appellant in this case is neither a customer of the bank nor someone to interact with ida wrote in his capacity as an employee of the bank he gambled with this individual on the internet so read rather urging a condition that makes it an injury possible isn't the proximate cause of the injury the same is true here with respect to the failure by the alleged compliance officer to discover that either rose was gambling with the pilot we deny those allegations entirely but recognize it was required by the pleadings to accept them as true even accepting them as true the officer scale here to discover the gambling did not itself set off a sequence of unspoken broken events the cause apparent damage on the contrary a duty by the bank to discover unlawful gambling cannot exist until after the gambling deter gambling have to take place and then someone gets flagged by the bank later for them to even invoke their obligations in the injury in some under both scenarios appellate argument is money that he'd already suffered losses and probably even win winnings that would allow him to go on and get sued and the other g l right case regardless none of lakes as  complaint actually says very little about his alleged damages he says he suffered millions of dollars of gambling losses over a period of years he doesn't say whether those losses outweighed his winnings he did not allege when those losses supposedly happened and that's essential because unlike a g l or a case that allows you to just do pure losses regardless of your winnings in this case if your poems about five million dollars but in reality he won ten million dollars he took five million dollars and our clients allege negligence the nothing but put money in his pocket but regardless he chose to attach to his complaint exhibits that show during the st year after i rose to become a member of the bank he was up six hundred thousand dollars and he set out to prove anything now but exhibits trump allegations and if he chooses to put those out there it was his choice he had multiple chances to fix this he chose not to like any good gambler he had the ability to let attach what he wanted but he was bluffing and perhaps at this point he didn't show the cards the court enough of his hand and awarded dismissal of his complaint and finally illegality this was an on lawful act but g l or a is under the criminal code he was a willful participate in the gambling whether he knew it was legal or not he knew that he was gambling the law allows for knowing wagers to be made that make it unlawful the court of margraf use which is the person who participates in the transaction in by statute to claim damages growing out of such and yes thank you your honor with respect to proximate cause and the final point made by counsel right here the illegality their time and because with respect to proximate cause the circuit court ruled that my client couldn't prove proximate cause because his own illegal conduct allegedly contributed contributed as damages the problem and the great inconsistency here is that the court had already allowed our fraud count to stand maybe the laws of the forum dictate whether this thing is legal or not we had alleged sufficient facts to proceed to the trier of fact on whether there was fraud committed in representing the legality of this websites than on the other hand the court turns around and says oh mr webb was engaging in illegal activity but he already said that we had alleged enough facts to show that we had been defrauded into believing that  actually legal those two things cannot co exist and the only thing that makes sense is for this part of the case to go back because this proximate cost issue is an issue of fact  there are facts out there that potentially in discovery that would show that this was not my client knowingly engaging in illegal gambling counsel also spent a lot of time the center knew in talking about how we're attempting to create this failsafe yaml x strategy but even if we can't recover our gambling losses we've still alleged sufficient damages to survive a motion to dismiss the gambling losses were only one category of damages that we argued at the hearing on the motions dismissed in response to their motion the there were other categories of damage specifically the money that was stolen from my client the conversion count remains pending weevil as a sum of money  a posit that was not gambled with that i are also stole that is damaged erica regardless of whether my client lost or won money gambling or whether he ever gambled or not even if none of the gambling comes in and there recover your own losses that's fine we have other damages against the bank besides gambling losses and we did also allege that the bank did he before he became a board member but the fact of the matter is that the gambling operation exploded and flourished as a result of more than ten million dollars in loans that the bank gave him once he got on the board  the allegations in the complaint were that the bank was either also was borrowing money from his own bank he was buying real estate using this money to essentially launder money through the purchase and sale of commercial real estate and that money he was using to fund his bookmaking operation that stuff didn't happen before before either rose became a board member  the i think the the big inconsistency here with respect to this statement made by the circuit court and it was expanded on the nd of my counsel about john webb trying to create a failsafe gambling strategy that just shows the problem with the circuit courts rule and because i am a as i have you know gone over time and time again this afternoon even if my client is not allowed to recover anything relating to his gambling losses and even if he took a net win which he did not there are still other damages that are available to us and we did cite cases that say even nominal damages