everybody agrees that stephanie has sued under the illinois domestic violence there and the illinois domestic violence act has never yet been reached everybody agrees there has been no merit review of the merits of stephanie's claim of  and specifically reference you evan certain said the five hundred council may well conclude that claims under state law provide the best chance of recovery an affidavit from one officer calls another officers failure to confiscate almost she stands derelict police work if the federal claims dismissed are banned in the district court should relinquish some supplemental jurisdiction over bond state laws here upon remained from the seventh circuit stephanie through her lawyer filed the instant complaint and chancing county circuit cour file not one motion to dismiss not two motions to dismiss but actually three motions to dismiss which resulted in the order of dismissal which is here on appeal today i am willing and able to discuss any of the procedural obstacles and have done so in my free but despite the procedural obstacles this is about whether merit review under the illinois domestic violence  court clearly stated perception thirteen to seventeen it's three meal reflecting a legislative intent to protect the party who brings the action in good faith from complete loss of relief on the merits merely because a procedural  before i ever met step before had agreed to represent her she filed the pro se complaint it is my understanding although it's not in the record that she filed their prostate complaint because she was urged to do so by clinic workers at a domestic violence clinic who were moved by her plight but not i honestly did not don't know anything about the drafting of that from play i certainly wasn't involved in i don't know about the drafting somebody calls it could be but there was a domestic violence clinic worker that was also a lawyer so i could have been  it is a crime for a person to possess and control guns without a valid  discretion of the poor section two six nine hundred eighty three allows dismissal if there's another action handing between the same party for the same cause the same costly parlin this is not disputed i think it is the same causes illinois domestic violence  action taken again was it candy i say not but the the third requirement for a few six thousand nine hundred eighty three dismissal is that they're the same party the same parties requirement is not met here in this case yes there's overlapping parties the champagne county sheriff was sued in both of the lawsuits the pro se and the instant and three of the individuals were sued in the same month but if you think for a moment about the illinois domestic violence acts such system of civil liability it is for willful and wanton and spite individual well there were eleven additional individual sued when a lawyer got involved when in the instant complaint and man the courts discretion involves a mandatory way of prejudice to the non movement stephanie is three times the non movement you are against the policy of avoiding duplicative litigation answer the complaint because no defendant was ever served with the complaint so in any mandatory weighing of prejudice to the non movement it's very great and against the policy patient there is is no threat of to put it in litigation it's understood from the chronological history or soon presumably i don't think the defendants even knew about the pro se lawsuit until their second motion to dismiss was filed after the first one which was harassment or multiplicity against the defendants such that they should be protected there is none here and let me explain why there is not an absolute zero zero chance of that and the reason is because there is no there was never any need for them to answer they were never called to answer they were never served they never became i'm threatened or harassed or given multiple or any service or involvement in the pro se lawsuit no defendant ever there is also i think in that kind of an implication of harassment has an implication of bad they there can be se the third element factors likelihood of obtaining complete relief in a foreign jurisdiction once again there is no foreign jurisdiction so there is no chance or likelihood of obtaining complete really been for form champaign county the form where i practice and where the instant complaint was filed and we have no foreign to form so there is no possibility of either a final judgement which traceroute dukat it would  form final judgement which would require a case filed in some other jurisdiction but there is none so race to the current effect of a foreign judgment in a local form is zero the champagne county form is protected at all times because the instant complaint was filed there and stephanie has pursued id v a claims right there in champaign  as a matter of law section thirteen to seventeen does not apply first i will note that section thirteen to seventeen and i i struggled with this i may not be as resourceful as well i think then again i wish that it wasn't there the pro se complaint or the motion to dismiss it but i don't think the motion to dismiss was never acted upon so it has no thirteen to seventeen application because it would have to have a date i mean to thirteen to seventeen is there is a provision that works on a timeframe which we're all familiar with so it would have to have a date certain when it started after you file stamp by the clerk and it was dismissed on x date i think so if it's not i book i would have liked it but that wasn't the main thing it would be very difficult to proceed on the pro se complaint i think i said in my brief that would die of a thousand arrows i think it would die quickly of the first ten fifteen arrows before  file stamp and it would be familiar to us as lawyers and on and we would know what we had to do with it and when we had what timeframe we had to do with it such as amendment or something like that his law says thirteen to circuit such a technical sterile application of the civil practice act exults at the expense of substan through the house and she showed them not all the guns because she didn't know where they all were and she knew some were hidden but she showed them the guns and they what they did is they took one in the laundry room and unloaded it took two that were hidden in laundry room an unloaded those two guns presumably for safety reasons although it's hard to understand when they left the other eighty lying around here then whatever and then they left her house and they left her with those another time the shipping county sheriff state out of the surrounding it but were afraid to go in because they knew ways for you to approach this case i think that the obvious route is to look at it from the standpoint of the motion to dismiss it or to death six hundred three i think your honor you pointed out some of the issues with respect to is it a pending procedure point here the valid complaint rices when it's filed it's not contingent upon service on the defendants it's contingent upon the filing at that time as the trial court pointed out the court takes years to shoot over the case subject matter and of the plaintiff and then has to go out and serve to bring in the defendants but taking your stiction over the case comes with the filing of the complaint by the light and i think that satisfies the requirement that we have a hand in action the question here then becomes do we have the same parties do we have the same cause the same cause of action in council admitted we have the same action here is not a cause of action is the same action i think they've admitted that i'm not going to party because we don't have the same individuals by name we don't see an individual number but cases such as hocks from this court cases such as the ones that we cited in our brief in the various other court districts have said the same parties requirement can be met so long as the interests are sufficiently similar you don't have to have the same number of defendants the same name defend it so it doesn't have to be same parties in number or or in name as they put it the katherine case talks about that as well  consider that factor and it came to the conclusion that same parties the same parties requirement does not require the same name and number and so i think that point was considered and that goes to the argument that councils made with respect to whether we w that what he's referring to by that to this is the fact this is the third find the pro se we have the federal and we have the second state but let's look at it because federal and it claim i think this is important you know councils made make comments about well we were prejudice we don't have the ability perhaps to to address some of the additional defendants in the case but after the federal constitutional claims were were stricken by the court of appeals and it was sent back to the district court for consideration counsel voluntarily then dismissed and give up on the federal claims which we've been dismissed with prejudice but the interesting part is under i think it's thirteen sixty seven the council had the ability to present to the federal court look we've got a federal case here or we've got state claims here that we need to have filed and continue to pursue in the federal court rather than go back to the state court we have all the defendant i think we clearly do have a prior case on file whether it's been served and not we do have prior litigation and under the rule litigation it's me i know it's activity on both sides we have a prior case on file i think that would probably complain completely leave are not really at issue here so i'm going to focus on factors to the fort and the court considered as you pointed out your honor the most multiplicity the vexatious and the harassment aspect and perhaps you know maybe it may be the proper way would be to look at it as a multiplicity rather than a vexation i mean if you have a problem with that phrasing i think we can certainly said this fall if i says multiplicity because we've got it three lawsuits filed and the fourth factor was considered as well  albeit of the parties and whether the similarity with the courts is while additional parties have been named in this case these individuals are not involved in the same set of alleged events leading up to bond's injuries and share the same interests i think that is addressing really what they're saying they're saying we can't  right i guess is the way sane and under under the co civil procedure to come in and raise a motion saying we've got multiple litigation proceeding had they proceeded had they proceeded on the prostate complaint it would have gone forward a i think that would give a more compelling argument to my mind on that i think it would that the federal court would refuse to do that but they could they didn't they didn't even ask i think that's our point here it's not whether or not we could have proceeded in the federal court action as defendants and whether that could have gone forward i think the question is under these facts we've got pro se filing the federal and state court refiling whether or not the trial court properly considered our motion under six hundred eighty three case and we have we have the right to come in and raise our motion and say we've got a qualification already a we've got one of the grounds for a motion to dismiss based on a three the trial court then was whether he went one way or the other he made a decision he had to go one way or another and i guess my point is we did everything that we were supposed to do as a defendant when we had when we were faced with multiple pending litigation we did most litigation may not include all the people that are involved in the subsequently filed matter and i think by the way the statute is written it implicitly assumes that there are going to be situations where that in fact might arise otherwise we'd have to have the  parity of parties number and name and no case that i'm aware of says that one gets to mean that that's why we have a judge who has to exercise their discretion correct and in doing that consider ok what is the i don't know i'm not saying automatically your honor i'm saying it puts it in the realm of the discretion of the trial judge and the trial just exercise discretion here they just don't like that the result i and that really i mean that would be the  my point my point is a something doesn't become a matter that no reasonable person would cite simply because it could be an alternative decision that the judge obviously had an alternative decision here that he denied it but we're not right to be determinative versus the underlying merits of the lawsuit which has to do with the prejudice that would accrue to the defendant and i think our question suggest that if you look at it subject of late maybe that's the way to put it that the prejudice is far greater to the p in terms of long term consequences versus kind of short term consequences which it here to the meaning of the code but certainly could have gone the other way is it proper for us the way that in in deciding whether or not he abused his discretion he's got discretion right he could do what he did if i don't play you're saying well we really ought to win because that's the way civil procedure works but if we were really that inconvenienced we're not really prejudiced as far as we know in terms of gathering evidence that timeframe really isn't that significant given that this second complaint was filed within months after the federal district court  we're asking you to find that this was not an abuse of discretion and we don't believe that they can show that no reasonable person reaches thank you very much  very briefly on rebuttal your honor said pointed out well you know opposing counsel said maybe they could have stayed in federal court and begged the federal court to keep supplemental jurisdiction that's a good idea except the federal court the seventh circuit said if the federal claim the they gave a they came down from the seventh circuit and then the district court issued a ruling that said you have thirty days to do this this so this and we are declining in the supplemental jurisdiction but they gave you leave to file them in with prejudice except with the federal and then said you have three days to file in state court i don't know how they knew thirty days to file a state court they were just saying we've relinquished our supplemental jurisdiction you have thirty days to file in state claims but if if the fact that she filed three is is a problem it really if you want to get nit picky they filed three times too so if you're taking three bites of the apple that is a problem all in and of itself the the defendants also did that with their three motions to dismiss but there's not an exact parallel to what i'm trying to say as i sit down is that stephanie has a valid id a claim we are willing to present to tim pursu proper means to serving the defendants through acting on it through serving the court and we believe we should have that right thank