civic center project because unbeknownst to my client at the time of day mr hoffman had up put himself in a position where he gained more than the value or of the project as opposed to its success  f the river sets up forth in the river park case are met one is a final judgment has been rendered and two there is an identity of parties in this matter with the hoffman to matter the point of contention is what the third requirement is whether there is a identity of cause of action and within there there's two points of contention one is there is no identity of cause of action because the action that are sewing include the relation and time space origin and motivation and whether they form a convenient trial unit and whether their treatment as a single unit come forms to the parties expectations and business usage  doctor's failure to order a c section prior to and during delivery of a baby which ultimately was amazed to cause some birth to damage them some injuries to the baby and in that quote case the second lawsuit involved some other medical malpractise i believe failure to open outweighs properly which occurred after or shortly after the delivery of the bay now the court found there to be similarities and time in space in those two causes of actions and they found that from the standpoint of the medical community that it made sense that this was all one action because generally fund raising efforts sabotaging the efforts to especially this cycle nation event which was one of the biggest fund raising events for these are the facts that give rise to campbell's of the appellant's recovery in the sense that cause of action there is no cause of action for fraud there is no cause of action seeking recovery for whatever damages may have civic center projects but when you look at the facts that go into that give rise to these two these two claims they are separate in time and space and it really doesn't make sense business  signed by i q by rolling campbell melody campbell and that there and then john preacher those were signed prior to two to really any work in developing this project they were day and then the next day it spans significant amount of time so when you look at transaction as the whole east peoria civic center that would that would be a very broad description of a transaction in my canyon but when you look at when you look at say the transaction of that contract of that of obtaining the loan the prior to any efforts had been made to raise funds and to develop this working together to for the success of this venture and then at some point mr hoffman was able to take assume or purchased the rights to the yet the the i guess the the duty hunts from or the duty that was breached is more from the partnership the relationship as partners in this business raised it in your answer in the in the previous litigation well i think the that it's not necessarily the task the test is whether when you look at the facts whether it was one transaction fans but at that time it's just the weather the weather my clients or the camels knew this was going on i don't know but i think when you look at just was defined by campbell will brief involves a case we're off on was consider the bar or of a large amount of money because he was the money man gary and gene this loan for the benefit of camp o the others to develop was yuri convention center and the group of investors campbell and the others were i mean difficulty making payments and so there suit on a personal guarantee and that was against miller john miller and mr mrs campbell and as no growth of that suit miller had filed the counter alleged also in that counterclaim under hoffman too but it's just an expansion of that and really in terms of space and time did one of them more appropriate to bring this up in the ho because there was an allegation of default so often did in fact have something to do with their defaulting or their inability to cure that that's one that sort of thing should have really been brought up more common sense would have dictated that would be the appropriate time for bring enough that out fertik the order but they did not so this current case arises from a single group or core or opera facts are the record stated that there was a continuous series of events that occurred here we have the labor delivery and then the postpartum and so that was the same court of he did and that had to do with the events of that a few occurred during about the time of hoffa while now that this was something that occurred after hoffman to then i could understand because there would be transactional test which relates to the identity of cause of action which we have today that's basically the solution we're here they are is the identity of cause of action which is a more liberal or grod interpretation on how to identify causes of action the court is not looking at different causes of action what types of cars that actually might be or the different evidence but the fact that all the claims arise from a business and financial relationship between the parties and which was over a substantial number of years and that all had to do with the development of this period convention center on the court probe organist order specifically refers to the campbell would hardly be able to argue that he didn't know anything about this i hear the same counsel in both cases and they brought up look toward of fraud and reference to this so hawking with more things that he should have done in the first place and then also to have another party which would be international supply company him first first of all i just want to clarify i don't have personal knowledge to know that mr campbell do not know what these facts and i raise that i just raised that as an issue because  i don't think knowledge of the facts or the fact that the we could of or should of those are part of the us that set forth in the river park transactional past the river park looks at the facts that give rise to both as the back to these causes of action is an eye makes i guess that makes the decision as to whether there was a relation in time space for fraud it may go into some other form of maybe a summary judgment or statue of limitations determination but i think under the river park transactional test that is not considered no factual determination or any evidence showing why the breach occurred the judgment issued by the decision issued by judge corrie's simply states one paragraph or answer one sentence that the business failed the project fail there was no determination as to why as to whether that was the justification then so clearly the intent of the talking to case was to strictly interpret these guarantee agreements and not go into the reasons behind the failure of this project and i think to me that is that that is evidence of that the fact that these two are