court of all of his clients against a horseshoe casino on account of an incident that occurred in march of two thousand and eight and we have a number of issues that we've raised concerning the propriety of summary judgment on all of the climbs and unless the court prefers otherwise i will take those issues up and following the water the st would be the horse shoes refusal and failure to this day to cash and redeem mr pickle looks casino chips in the amount of thirty three thousand seven hundred dollars those chips include as weddings and includes his initial buy in of two thousand eight hundred dollars and the casino's obligation argument is that exceed i was an obligation under wheezy end of gaming laws to redeem in cash those  they have not done so it would be it was error for a trial court to dismiss that claim without even addressing the louisiana regulatory gaming scene no represent so he said he didn't know that horse you was a season see no but he said he didn't want to use his toll rewards card how would you use a total rewards card if you didn't know this was a i mean tell rewards is only for caesar's casinos so that seems kind of inconsistent knowing you could use a bit deciding not to is inconsistent with saying i didn't realize it was a caesars casino caesars casino i think what mr beck was telling her testifying to was that he had not realized he had been banned or supposedly banned from the horseshoe because it was not a caesars casino that they had asked you not to come back to correct at the top yet the time you're talking about he had been in las vegas at bally's and then asking only and he left and he had not realized later that welp the horseshoe and louisiana is part banned from because caesar's is there anything in the record is no record there is no evidence in this record this record consist of over a one thousand pages there is no record no documented showing that move to pick a look who lives in canada received any notice from caesar's and los vegas that you cannot come to any of our casinos and play and if you do we'll have you arrested for trespassing on the kick you out there is no record of that the only evidence in this record of this banning is what we refer to as the wind net message it's a computer message you if you're a casino if you're if you're  their computer there's nothing in there saying he was notified nothing in there saying he was told nothing say that he actually received any notification in fact the evidence in the summary judgment record as that conversion type claim is it based soley on i mean i think it's three thousand dollars worth of chips money that he gave to the window and got chips for or is it also ba playing and getting getting winning and winning chips is it may stick on really really clearly asking for the thirty three thousand seven hundred dollars which includes his by hand but i his winnings he played blackjack and the rest is undisputed i believe for five hours he won over thirty thousand dollars it's above it's both his initial amount that he traded in dollars for  when presented by a patron redeem those chips and that's how you play at a casino that's the representation the casinos give you when you walk in the door give me your money your cash i'll give you chips at the end of the day we'll settle up at the cage which did not happen here that is the are the chips still fungible or could someone else take them in and cash them or is or they've been marked in some way such that they're no longer valuable as legal matter rob a bully not because you're supposed to be a patron and as a practical matter the casinos when you want to cash the chips and you can look at this on the video you can see that the cage when he presented they will ask you where did you get if big chips and all these chips are five hundred dollars chips these are not five dollars chips twenty five dollars chips or even one hundred dollars up there five hundred dollars and show up a bunch of five hundred dollars chips or there's a word you get these where are you playing they might pick up the phone that he actually win this they want to know they keep track of this right but whether or not their concern and the louisiana law they're supposed to be considered currency for lack of a better word in the casino and so that's why i'm asking if i wonder if they're still considered currency or whether they're i'll ask opposing counsel about it as well because you know more about whether this is a state law conversion i'm trying to this goes it's not necessarily a hostile question for your conver claim of whether there's still some value there that he that hasn't been adjudicated i would submit that if i show up with those chips and ask that they be cash and they asked me where i got last minute so now you're a patron signed up for total rewards your hatred and then you walk up there and say i think they would still want to know and if i if they cannot determine that i won those chips by by playing at their casino all speculation i mean is you have to have i see that it says a thing about patrons but it does where does it say like in my husband cash in my chips there's nothing that says i will undoubtably cash though but it's but if you're handing thirty thousand dollars worth of chips they want going to ask questions once they determine he's your house and your cash or for you they would probably cash  i want to move on to the claims for the violation of a civil rights and the joint action with the police officers and the louisiana state tort claims that arise from the unlawful warrantless arrest and imprisonment at the bow your city jail the district court dismissed all of those clients as i read the summary judgment decision based on warren incorrect findings in the afternoons and that is that the voters city police when they were summoned and arrived at the casino that they somehow conducted an independent investigation into the events in the terminal on their own as a result of that independent investigation and that they had probable cause or basis for arresting says they had to have interviewed him and determined whether or not he knew he should be on the property or not you know you could say that the investigation was not is there a and they made a mistake but what gets it from not being thorough in mistake two two that it's a violation of his rights you know because i've been asking other suttas pay probably should talked to him as part of the investigation but they they didn't but but nonetheless what's most what what did how does that in any way transform it from not being an independent investigation standard both of the louisiana cases as well as the federal cases from this court is that the investigation be independent and and standard as for independents is that the resting officers rely upon something more then the statements from the complaint the complaint and again we have the case in center or brief that you need an independent investigation otherwise you don't break the causation sharing and the independent investigation is warmer than simply taking the state the complainant well i also took the fact that he was there on the video so it wasn't just based upon the statement it was that he was there and did they also have access to the little computer thing that said he was banned fact that he was there i think is relevant because when he was there and they saw him he was in the custody of three casino people that they knew facts and i would also submit they did not have access to that computer like fact that's one of our main basis is that they didn't ask for any of the paperwork they they were promised some paperwork they never received what case is that that gets you over summary judgment respect to case and then the so the court after a trial concluded that such a plan had been evidence erast by the police department the city of lost them were made without the filing of a complaint and without any investigation all of which was and he arrived at the scene they pointed out mr smith as being a shoplifter and he arrested mr smith or as a shoplifter and that was his investigation and again i don't have my hands on the cases that we cite in both our reply brief and our main break where case after case requires an independent investigation and not an investigation based on what the police murray case out of the a circuit in the derisive ok's in the difference there you're honest for instance our counsel read the police officers testimony from the brokers k smith versus brokers but there was a different part that you didn't read specifically where the police officer from the loft and police department testified that there was in fact a preconceived plan there's actually testimony and that's that's the difference here on the one thousand nine hundred and three claims for the victim you call this investigation why did we show up see the guy there and we're told he shouldn't be here of an independent investigation that the courts look to one of which is an officer's interview of the complaining employee another one is the independent observation of the suspect the rd is the officer writing her own report in all journal public place where the average person is not trespassing has to be that you're in violation of something and they did is show him anything other than just saying you know supposed to be here if that's an investigation then i just think the  citing back to the murray case i think the court said that is enough in i think one of the issues here in this is what the plaintiff is presenting this view that is it is too simplistic to be an independent investigation but we would suggest your honor this is not involved crime as the as the record suggests sergeant thompson who made the decision to arrest as well as the officer who actually transported jordan they both testified in the record that this is our investigation this is not just for this casino this is not just for the casinos in pairs this is for property owners in the city of voter it's consistent throughout in i guess just is a public place if i'm you know shopping at a grocery store and walk out of my cart i'll send a bunch of police officer show up and arrest me i'm going to be a little bit shocked because i thought i was in a public place and then some employee says yeah policies in place where they have formal notifications i go for instance if it is a small mom and shop store it is still a public place but if the police officer goes in there in the proprietor of that business is this is you know if he's interviewed or she's interviewed by the police officer and says that individual has been told on previous occasions that they are not allowed on my property and the police officer views that individual on the property and thereafter detain them then yes that is a police officer the police officer accepts that lie and that's an independent investigation no your honor the kind of argument is that you cannot lie ok well that's what this guy did he said yes he's been told but there was no indication of that anywhere and he personally didn't know that and the computer didn't say that the record supports windows when that intrigue is made rob brown one of the of the defendants testified the entry was made in june of two thousand and sixteen in when it was made it's done in connection with the part of the ban or the eviction letters that are sent so he didn't it's not a case of where they lied and said he was a victim any knew about it he didn't they relied on their internal caesar's and i rely on that policy your honor it's my recollection from the record that the deed the evidence of that came from the testimony of the employees my recollection was that it was mr brown it could be others but no i'm sorry i mean he's the guy that's accused of miss misrepresenting the situation so it would seem to me of caesar's has this policy it would be somewhere it's a big company yes right i don't huge and so if they're they're not just like two guys with a policy in there you know they told their friend it's going to be written somewhere where is that that's what i'm asking if it's not in the records on the record that's fine i merely your honor clearly on it that is not in the record there is not something from from a handbook or an internal guide that has that that is not in the record ok if if the if we thought the summary judgment evidence indicated that he lied could indicate that he lied we're not sure does that change your analysis if if we thought that the worker could have lied in that that's a possibility does that change your analysis in any way i think your honor that may change mine now with this with regard to the state law climbs that i'll get to but not with regard to the one thousand nine hundred and three climbs because i don't think that would that would satisfy the element of fair attribution i still don't he would not be acting under color of law even under that circumstance so either way in just to wrap up that that section that either way the the plaintiff has not shown fair attribution he's not shown these private individuals were acting under the color of law against your owners with the cases that were cited by the the plaintiff on that issue there was there was good evidence in those cases that there was up with the chips today and in both your city could he redeem those let's assume arguing that he's a patron let's say he's played in in the casino before hasn't told the worst part of whatever it takes to be a patron and he shows up with the thirty thousand chips can he redeem those i don't know a reason why i go in your honor to get back to one of those question like you're going to settle that part and well to get back to well in the reason that the point of couldn't redeem them in good spirits is captured on one of that the chips are still going to give a cop converted his money have you i mean have is that well why isn't there some evidence that you have because he hasn't been able i mean is the reason you haven't not you personally your client because they haven't been able to show that they tried to redeem the chips and they were unable to i have to say the conversion claim is problematic and so what do you have to say about it and well there was a couple questions and then i i'm not sure i heard that the st part about what i think your honor asked whether it had been converted to conseco now i'm asking whether it's ok does he have a claim that you have converted his money not under louisiana law because he wasn't able to cash his chips or is it not yet a claim because no one else has tried to cash the chips i think that's i think that's probably it factually your honor before we get to the factually as as the court knows from the record if it's on tape when the when the point if was still there at the scene there was some discussion about cashing his chips and he right away mentioned a lawyer  d mr brown gave the plaintiff the name of the wheezy and a state trooper who's over the gaming control trooper who's over this area and within three days there was a letter from from a lawyer representing the plaintiff a little bit like haha but if you're saying ok mr lewis can do it why didn't you say that we why does it take me in the th circuit having to ask that instead of you all resolving that in just paying it they're asking for it they made a demand here's the chips we want our money wine are you not paying it well in again your i was it was the defendant's position that the plaintiff wasn't entitled to those funds the that the winnings because he had at least send that claim back you will need to make an argument through legal arguments your honor i will i will make the argument that judge hicks maybe even in as to the conversion claim he relied on twenty seven dol colin twenty seven dollars in an essentially it offers immunity against damage claims arising out of an exclusion and according to the district judge not of damage this is not like he broke his knee i his arm or something when he's trying to be arrested and that's not this is not a damage claim out of an exclusion you're correct ryan and i misspoke i think they started actually says liability arising from the climbs and as that is the court knows from our briefing it's our position that the causation element of those claims were were broken based on the louisiana supreme court's decision in canada in the plane  cannot meet his his burden as to any of those two or claims with regard to the negligence claims or on or up playing a primarily relies on the the st lee case and we believe that ruling is much more narrow on than the than the plaintiff would would interpret it and that leads back to you know if the if a merchant knowingly provides false information perhaps there could be tort liability but absent that there is not then tha your honour's if you don't have any other questions we would request th cash those chips now because of the ban the fact that he was dismissed from his trespassing charges they said they were sure they have to check with legal on that is something you telling something out of the record it's not  i can you can find your remarks today to the extent you've already told us something out of the record you have a right to follow twenty eight j in two days if there's some response but let's let's all listen get back into the record i  perhaps and i agree and perhaps we have lead you out of the record but let's let's all get back to the record for the rest and again the reason it's not in the record it really wasn't an issue at the summary judgment stage in the court below because the horseshoe did not ask cited on pages for eighty nine and ten both of those cases where the complainant provided false information to the police that responded to a complaint and took action based soley slowly on what he was told by the complainant and he choose those cases to louisiana courts said that is not an independent investigation it does not break the causation chain you still have cause because what's caused or procure the arrest for malicious prosecution and for other torts is making the complaint in the st instance is there any evidence in the record whatsoever of caesar's policy that says when to submit that under these facts and what's on the video and the testimony this is a jury question this is not for judge hicks or the district court to make a judgment and weigh the evidence to conclude that there wasn't sufficient evidence of the customary play and preconceived range but because we think that the evidence is there the statements by the police officer what you see on the video fact that the very st dispatch call gets in the record we have the audio the the the womyn from the casino calls up the boater city police and says at the horseshoe i have a person here who needs to be arrested asked a deposition why not we didn't intend to ask him anything you're not going to ask you questions we don't need to read miranda warnings i mean there is nothing in this record that indicates that there was any investigation that was in the pin the other than what the casino did casino sad to see you know requested and they did that each and every time times thank you very much reuters for listening to us thank you this case