elements of the case must be met and there is a conflict and discrepancies that exist between the magistrate judge judge's lengthy and now says in his report a recommendation which says that these all six elements were not met and the district court judge's decision where he has chosen to over will this analysis with no reference to any evidentiary support required or provided by the plaintiff's apologies in the district court plaintiffs are not entitled to a summary judgment on the issue of whether china and symbolist criminal acts for reasonably foreseeable and also that the plaintiffs cannot be granted summary judgment on the issue of lost cause ation the district court's ruling is procedurally unreasonable as it affected substantial rights of mine as a defendant since if both of these elements for not met there was also no causal connection made between my allegedly untruthful statements and or negligence and the plaintiffs a pelleas actual losses the magistrate judge states that there is no evidentiary support for any reliance provided by the plaintiffs regarding misstatements concerning due diligence and he also acknowledges the evidence i supplied that i had no knowledge consistently said and supplied i had no knowledge that the perpetrators of the crime chamma and zimbalist were engaging in a fraudulent scheme or that they would have scanned with the investors money the court also oversteps and overreaches concerning scienter and does not refer to any other statements other than the three that magistrate gorenstein refers to and identifies in his report recommendation honor and upon analysis and you can also review in the magistrate's report that is limited to three statements only from that play it's not an overarching  sorry answer beyond those three statements and as far as the due diligence there's also no causal connection and there hasn't been any any relevant relationship submitted to the court or that the court so and i take it your position is that they invested based upon different considerations not just on your statements but of the things they were told by others to do it or they you worked for american express and the issue of foreseeability is significant here also because in the record i know that it's not in the appendix but in the record is the testimony of detective simeon plyler of the los angeles los angeles county sheriff's department and in that particular deposition which is significant your honour's mr brody on his cross examination of detective pilar did ask as to about the information about due diligence and also whether it was possible for a financial advisor in this case to four see what was happening and the sheriff's answer in that deposition and i would be happy to provide this to the court but it is in the record already the witness who is the sheriff said his answer was no it was not possible and in fact he also asked if there were any other financial advisers some fault with this and his answer was yes and he cited other victims one who in fact moment was mrs and bless a friend for thirty five years she lived across the street from her all the time she was a real estate agent and she saw these properties she lived in the market she knew the market and she felt that the business that zimbalist was and could be profitable if they had done it right and in fact she and her son in law and four people that she referred this investment to herself they all lost their money in this investment as well you reserved a couple minutes rebuttal yes or hear the other side of the no hear you thank you thank you the court scotty brody for the plaintiff chapelle these your honors ms will cover entered a guilty plea to twenty four charges incorporating violations of the martin act and new york state's general business law as part of a scheme to defraud the plaintiffs in this case those guilty pleas didn't require her to concede reliance is that right they did not require her to concede reliance and that is why as part of my brief and as part of the evidence that was submitted before a thirty five page distilled analysis of the reliance issue and in our brief here we distilled down even further to show one of the one thousand plaintiffs and the events that took place that set forth the pages six through nine of our brief but when you have to show remind with respect separately with respect to each of the thirty one it's what i thought it was thirty one please there's there is less than thirty one judge dropping away  she did was she blamed other plaintiffs in this case nine of them for referring people to her and saying well if they were equally is negligent as i was in causing these people to invest violation of the very close personal relationship she developed with each of them and you know that you still have the question of reliance it each and every minute material a mission or false statement but there still has to be reliance each plaintiff in this case very specifically stated under oath during their deposition that they relied upon ms will cause representations to them and unlike a situation for example where you might invest in a stock such as coca cola where you could have other information available to you these were very specific limited investments she was these investments weren't there  plaintiffs wrote it we believe that they wrote it but we don't know that for a fact because if they if they look at the docket if they looked at the document they would have relied upon a kind of light on that but the issue isn't whether or not they they sold he relied upon by his work of the question is what induced them to make the investment in the first instance they would never have seen the stock units created in california had ms will cover not introduced them in the first place not represented that she had investigated those documents not represented that she had invested with them successfully in the past has come to her because other customers recommended her there's no question ms will come of argues that not one of the miss will cost several times she took them to launch she went through the investments with them there's no testimony that he went through these investments with mr charney only that mr cho and he made the introduction now he may have had some level of reliance because he was introduced by somebody but she used her position as american express financial advisor her then independent meetings with each of these people going through the alleged investment representing that she did her due diligence on them representing that she had invested with them in the past represented that she was monitoring the money which by the way she didn't because three or four different things that plaintive could have relied upon and you're just assuming that one of the switch she said was it but but but it could have been the other things well it could have been all of those things you know that without without having having a hearing to determine what these people say they relied on because there was no evidence to contradict it would we would that would be like in a class action if we had fully we don't have five thousand people who invested here we would need five thousand hearings to show that in each case she had an individual relationship with each one she induced them all to invest they relied upon her we are not here to discuss joint several liability we are here with whether or not her representations to each of these plaintiffs induced them to invest court that it was false and if she actually came right out that's one of her false statements and by the way she keeps saying well it's only those three false statements i excerpted exactly what she said page ten of my brief and let's be very clear she said some of the false statements i said to the investors were as follows not that those were the only false things she said she goes on to say to a support to a state court judge i know little about zim was and shayla and their companies i had no basis for recommending their companies and their investments your honor since that time since she stated that she has no time shown any remorse for any of her conduct and when she actually learned that all of these investments were fraudulent instead of notifying the investors that she had information to suggest that their money was being lost she judge that the plaintiffs pelleas cannot provide sufficient evidence or support to prove that they relied on the specific misrepresentations at issue and that they failed to meet the but for required test required for reliance that's what he said and also that the plaintiffs a pelleas have also failed to meet the element of loss causation as per the arguments submitted to the court and that includes judge borenstein footnote in his report recommendation an indication about this and that only one claim to have scott at bab ski remotely got close and also did not succeed and if you look at page twenty five of my brief that i submitted i quoted from that  report i am recommendation specifically and i'm only going to read you one sentence from it because i want to use the rest of my time to correct mr brody statements as far as plaintiff's briefs disclose the only plaintiffs who came close to testifying that the false statements regarding due diligence were bought for cause of the investment with scott advance who stated that he would not have invested in the california properties if he believed that will cover had down investigated and that's from his deposition and the rest of it you have so not going to read it to you now there are nine thousand individual clients here your honour's and mister prodi has used mr clean as his example and one of the things that you should know is that mr cohen and mr attorney were friends for years mr mr cohen also worked for a financial institution and he stated in his deposition testimony that if will cover was not an american express financial advisors he would not have invested the other thing that you should no is that the suit for the commissions that mr brody refers to came long before it was discovered that these investments were a scam and mr and mr broder mr brahimi collects to inform you that upon finding out that these investments were a scam i was working with an attorney in southern california who was a litigator he helped me identify these as a scam he helped me to connect with the police department in in that area and that attorney i asked that attorney and i paid that attorney to send a letter to all of the plaintiff's investors about these investments becoming a scam and giving them information of what they should do to pursue it and in fact when i did speak to the police department they did ask me to collect all of the information from the investors which i did make every effort to do and in fact the new york police department came in in a search and took it all away from me so that i wouldn't be able to file it appropriately thank you thank you both will reserve decision