may please the court the circuit court gave two reasons for dismissing the cities to to send both were legal error this morning i will explain first that the federal arbitration act authorized the city's petition to modify the judgment entered on the arbitration award and second that under illinois law the awkward agreement was a proper basis upon which to move for relief from the judgment the case should be remanded so that the circuit court can consider the petition on its merits section thirteen of the f a a makes a judgment confirming an arbitration award the same as any other judgment it states that a judgment on an arbitration award quote shall have the same force in effect in all respect and be subject to all the provisions of law relating to a judgment and then action for miscast for your theory is that if we case to court before confirmation of the arbitration award the court would be powerless to change the arbitrators award but after the confirmation of the award in a judgment they could then do something which they couldn't do before the court can confirm the arbitration award pursuant to section nine of the f a a which is done as long as there's no challenge under ten or eleven of the f a a and at that point section thirteen allows at once that once the judgment is entered section thirteen makes it the same yes this any other judgment so you sort of danced around my question and i understand why but i'm going to ask it again because i think this is a critical point decide this case you would concede would you not that except for the grounds in sections and  right if it's a challenge to the award the court is limited to sections ten and eleven and so your theory is that somehow based upon your reading of section thirteen they would have the power after seeing we co rm the judgment if they did not have before that i think the powers after it's entered as a judgment are different than they are before it's confirmed as a judgment and i think there really is no other way to read section judgment on an arbitration award is very different than a regular judgment which is directly contrary to the plain language of section nine so with respect to the ninth circuit that told ng should not be followed but the basis on which it was reached a judgment upon a decision or order rendered by the court at the conclusion of a judicial proceeding by contrast confirms the merits of that decision and goes on but you reject that that reading of it and you don't see this as really an enforcement provision although a number of federal and state courts have seem section thirteen as just an enabling section that would allow in and effect in all respects as and be subject to all the provisions of law relating to a judgment in an action and a judgment and an action is subject to post judgment relief statutes  as applicable law provides and that is the basis for the city's petition in this case and aspires the case by there are certainly cases that we said and i briefed which do to first of all runs at odds with a number of other cases and had a very strong dissent by judge kravitz graphics and  it was a situation even if you got to where i'm like this were there was a clear double pavement or what would clearly be a windfall to one side g baker is just one of several cases that we cite that follow the plain language of section thirteen which again is really inarguable it says in all respects whatever the facts of ai g baker were the holding as the court later reaffirmed and explained in fraser that at the same the same force and effect in all respects as subject to all the provisions of law and there's really no way to avoid that plain language well first of all really what you have with your reading of section thirteen is a process by which parties contractually agree to this issue the courts as the place to decide their dispute go through an arbitration hearing complete that hearing go to the circuit court asking as the city did as well as the your opponents for the award to be confined and then contrary to the concept of finality thereafter reopen we have a geisha by trying to undo the result of a process that was contractually agreed upon and really undo if i could take that in a few pieces here i mean you know just thank you and to begin with the parties did did have a contract to have arbitration and we did go through an arbitration now the contract also says that the parties agree that the f a a will govern and the f a a includes section thirteen of the f a a which include which i have stated several times already treats a judgment on an arbitration award the same as any other judgment so proceedings post judgment fully complied with the country actual arrangement that the parties had in this case also this does not undermine the finality of of awards this is exactly the procedure that the f a a contemplate and i don't agree that this will happen in all cases post judgment relief motions are not brought all the time and poll and courts don't routinely vacate and modify judgments and one of the reasons for that is courts will take into account the importance of finale of a judgment in deciding whether it's appropriate to grant some relief so whether relief is actually wanted here is another another issue a separate issue that the goal of having the court consider host judge really why it would make a difference in this case i would make a difference in this case your honor because the awkward agreement as the city had are has argued in its petition judgment to a certain amount but what if you then it says a court next off thirty nine million instead of forty million then it isn't in effect if the city council doesn't approve it it's not in effect right right but there's certainly no reason to expect the city council would approve a substantial savings let's go to the issue of whether they are which you claim that the consideration of something that wasn't in existence at the time of the arbitration award was never presented to the arbitrators as an option could be considered a your claim is that that would have precluded the entry of the judgment that you sought to be entered the we thought that the judgment be entered because the judgment has to be entered before a post judgment relief motion can be brought against it and the only reason that the court basically has very little discretion on whether or not to enter a judgment as they point out what you find all the information related to that agreement with aqua to the circuit court before you entered the judgment home and the entry of the judgment even after uprising from a court of the existence of the eleven and that since that wasn't there it was basically ministerial the circuit court had to enter a judgment and this is no different than the procedure in a i g baker there to the information that the movement wanted but the basis for the movement affect the underlying condition if you never got to the merits of the operation because the arbitration award doesn't even between past and future damages and your honor again i just want to emphasize this is just one of the many many things that did not get litigated in the circuit court because the circuit court would not even get to these issues so a lot of these things are not developed and that's because the circuit courts to legal errors you know i can i can represent it's if you're permit me to give an answer a little bit outside the record that it would not be a complicated calculation to cut the dates off to cut damages off at a certain date based on the evidence that was a dues and if the circuit court believed for the development was necessary the circuit c order that but the but at this point breaching the finality your honor at our position that section thirteen allows this sort of consideration for when he should between the president the arbitrator rested their award you know the primary expert of of c l p and that's clear from his report and charting how the damages would be you know reassessed at that point  court now there is nothing in the statutory language of the post judgment relief statutes and on the illinois that sets any time frame on the kind of evidence that can be considered and the courts do allow consideration of of  evidence post judgment condition for example in sayeed the court considered post judgment evidence that the plaintiff was now in the country when before the judgment he was not in the country and cypriani the court considered a fema report that was  obtained by the movement after the judgment and with the court allowed a post judgment statement by the ex wife after the custody hearing had already concluded and gone to judgment and the same thing was true in hopkins so therefore that the city's position was likewise supported by post judgment condition was no basis to outright dismiss the city's petition and the city's petition was also consistent with the cases that describe a requirement that the new evidence must relate to facts in existence before the judgment agreement plainly relates to facts and into existence prejudgment that the uk would accept public parking for the next ninety me please the court counsel for the city acknowledged just now that if it is a challenge to the award you are limited to sections ten and eleven and there are some debate in the briefs as to what decisions we're actually considering here is a decision on the merits to decide of the damages and that's the arbitrator to decide that and then there's a very narrow decision to confirm the award or vacate the award here confirm that judge  completed here there is no question and judge talking to terminus on the face of the petition that this is an attempt to use a post judgment relief motion that they call it to attack a determination of the arbitrators which is the awar seven of the petition at the common the record of page six says the city asks this court to enter the arbitration award stephen judgment and reduce the award paragraph thirty six the city asks the court to modify the award paragraph forty five the subsequent events justify modifying the award it goes on several other examples was there way in your view back hoes arbitration merits of the award no not under these circumstances are there circumstances under which they could alter the meet the facts of a new agreement entered into after the award no because one years my clients are going to be damaged by the actions that have occurred and the party that you were living getting against says after the fact wills will fix it will be limited so that you have absolutely no damages in the future for the next ninety one years is it equitable three million dollars is not just a contract for a lease of garages it's a contract for a competing parking provision which is an anti competitive present provision and an arbitration clause and the way the contract works and the arbitrators struggle with this and you can see it in their award they made a determination based on the contract that they must decide all damages now based on the reasonable net present value at the time of the competing parking mansion and so what is acceptable here to force the contract for which c l p paid in a very large amount of money and do what the arbitrator's were required to do and enforce that well you've just told me that the task the difficult task of the arbitrators was to assess not only the damage but the present cash value of damages going forward ninety one years i mean you could eliminate cars in ninety one years i mean this is this is very difficult job for the arbitrators to do and it's based upon differing opinions of people who are all looking into their crystal ball and say this is what we think the cost of damages will be in the future and this is what we think the present cash value of that would be now the arbitrators have a difficult decision of trying to critic and analyze the opinions of these experts and come up with their best guess as to what those damages armed with the present cash value of the games are but the city is saying we have a way to take all guesswork out of we'll just get rid of all those future damages isn't it equitable to give them a chance to do it it's not the arbitrators it have a difficult task you're right in that the arbitration they look to illinois law in the situation case for example that says when you have to have fewer damages and this happens in a wide variety of contexts not just in this contractual situation the judges or the arbitrator's in this case have to do their best to render  decision and they have to do it once and only once and that's consistent with the contract it's consistent with a single recovery principle of the law and there are good reasons why the law is that way the city says it's changed the facts here we dispute whether th really has as your questions got to some of that those points the facts are changing every day and they will change for the next ninety one years but your i think very pretty good deal with the fifty eight million dollars our client is entitled to the award that it got out of the contract i would tell you that perhaps our client does prefer this deal to the deal of the city negotiated on the side with another party that's why we're here of course but the city got five hundred sixty three million dollars in a deal it offered and one of the things that we got for that was this provision and we're not getting into and this court certainly doesn't have the authority to get it to because it has to be arbitrated whether that was a good deal either and so we think of the equitable thing to do here with all the cases say you're right as you baker is really the one case that they cite that is for them but it is easily distinguishable and that case says in fact this case is different it is about partial payment of  a war that's very different there's no with the wording to do this and when you look at the whole picture it is very much equitable to let us have what we contract for and what what we deserve and judge hall just to make it section twelve zero three and fourteen zero one under which petitioner allies provide no analogue for exercising equity in the circumstances of this case to consider facts created after the arbitration proceedings and let's take a step back here for a second what's happened here is the city went to arbitration after three and a half years lost didn't get what they wanted and then wanted another try that's not equitable that's not how our system is supposed to work whether it's an arbitration or trial this is more on the illinois law piece of this you want to allow to take one position a trial and if the arbitration here to be clear the city conceded didn't argue conceded that there was liability for the next ninety one years conceded that it was appropriate to have future damages and have their own expert opine that there were damages for the next ninety years if it was supposed to decide this and whether it was fair or equitable or what was it would be wildly applicable to let them take that position lose of the arbitration and then negotiate an agreement with a third party not with us that undermines all that that determination and so for  determination of the future damages and to eliminate the possibility that there will be any future damages so what you say it's equitable to do is to remove the dollars for an injury that hasn't happened yet with the city argues they can prevent it from ever happening the injury that we're talking about under the contract and it's defined and she'll be paid five hundred sixty three million dollars for this contract which the city put out to bed the injuries a competing parking action which here took place on may first two thousand and nine the injury took place you about semantical difference here because there are once you get past the fact that it's conceded that it was a competing parking action there are two elements to the damages for that what has happened in the past and what you  anticipate will happen in the future and at that point removing the potential for damages is one way to look at it the other way is as you say to put on blinders and say the only thing here is these are what you know this is one unified number for all the damages past and future but i'm sure that wasn't the way you evidence came into the arbitration there was this is what it's cost us in the past and this is what we're visibly that we cough this in the future it is actually interesting that you say that and although it's outside the record i was counsel of the arbitration and our experts said this is the damage they did not break it up it is a fifty eight million dollar award and you're right a lot of that is future damages a majority of the future damages by definition i don't agree with counsel for the city that is so easy or mechanical to break it up certainly not on the face of the award and even on the face of the record given the complexities that are in fact is by supporting this secularization anyway right i understand the argument about equity and this is this is my view the one question we anticipate  leaving those those damages because they think the arbitrators were too high that's the reality of the situation i totally agree with that and the petition itself says that it says that after they lost the arbitration they promptly entered into an attempt to mitigate it there's nothing i could have all about making a strategic decision for three and a half years to let this be open to concede that it will go on for ninety two years and then when the result doesn't turn out to be what they want to be creative they come up with another idea now the standard what our rights are so i think there are strong equities on our side and for the judicial system itself to not allow people to keep taking a second and third and fourth bite at the apple particular in the contract you're not supposed to do anything for them oh i would say is bringing it back to the federal arbitration act arbitrations are meant to be final they're meant to be speedy all the u s supreme court cases say that all street in particular and what's attempted here five years into this process is an attempt to continue to litigate and really get these issues and we don't think that's what the f a a allows we also we didn't spend a lot of time talking about it but we don't think that's what few quick points here the city does not ask to relive again the arbitration award section thirteen allows post judgment challenges that section thirteen of the a s plain language there is no basis to claim we are attempting to attack the award this is a classic post judgment relief based on post judgment circumstances for an example the court can look at the congressional security case that c l p cites that case the court found the parties were really attacking the award because they were trying to say that the arbitrators excluded evidence that should have been admitted at the award was the situation was or were you know expert witnesses in an person is able to regain use of their legs and walk again be a basis for doing what you're asking in this case no one because the mack ace that is a situation where we're talking about predictions and prophecies and we never know what might or might not happen with a person's you know leg and in that situation right or this is not what happened here overall we usually hear people will continue to hear automobiles continue  basis of opinions and litigation at the arbitration away but the one thing that was a fact was this was going to go on for ninety two years and all we are asking is that the date be cut off to prevent the future injury we're not saying well they'll get fewer cars or say there's going to be no cars public parking at the opera anymore and that is not a subject of prophecy or opinion that is just the simple fact how long is this going to last it was ninety two before and now we're saying it's it can be over and there is nothing in it at all about taking away an injury completely and that's what the city's petition proposes to do we are not challenging the finality of  that the case the remanded the judgment be reversed in the case to remand it so that the circuit court can consider the petition on its merits which it did not do thank you