state for face value and it is true that the response failed to disclose the uncontrollable outbreak of legionella bacteria in the hotel's our system i think it's important to understand that nature of the problem was that it infected virtually the entire hotel and that included yes friends which was the principal point of contact for the guests to be exposed to the legionnaires disease caused by legion case because the plaintiffs had their rooms comped they were members of the rewards program at rio and so they were acquired to pay only the resort fee deceptive trade practices act is very clear that the plainest can recover any damages that they suffer as a consequence of an unfair trade or deceptive trade  are your are your damages here that's my question i mean i guess the theory is they would not have come to the hotel had they been fairly do war and therefore they shouldn't have to pay anything even though they used the facility that's the difficulty that i am trying to get over is they use the facilities i mean is that just records said they they had full benefit they didn't get injured obviously anyone who contract could legionnaires they would have you know damages but that's not the damages you're claiming you're just claiming economic damages for purchasing or purchasing something at all to stage a real headache you know the dangerous condition that existed in those homes and so they should be rewarded they should recover that money that they gave so the real that they otherwise would not pay and so they are also they also received i mean i don't know how much benefit they got i mean maybe this doesn't undermine your claim you know i'm not asking these questions suggest that you you know there's not something here that needs to be worked through but i'm just trying to flesh out the damage claim here because i don't get it if they didn't use it if they paid for something to use it but where they paid for it and used it i mean how do you i mean your clients damages throughout the united states was some somewhat of like a murky ocean that was difficult to see through and the it was hard to find the  for the bear on damages on which you would urge that we sort of fry questions the nevada supreme court i believe there get that benefit i mean there maybe it is the poor may have you know not i don't know what a poor joe would legionnaires disease is worth compared to another you know  but there is no allegation that they were denied access to facilities that seems to be i don't know whether it's you know fatal but that seems to be one of the meaner mean problems with you if you go back and look at some of the cases for example the you know the case where in nevada i believe it was where they drove out to a car dealership because they were told that there would be some benefit there  it turned out that was false well then they were able to get the cost of driving out to find out that you know there was some deception there but here even if there was deception you know if they knew about the legionnaires disease and didn't convey that what is the harm to the clients be still used it and didn't contract legionnaires disease so i don't know it seems case just don't seem to match up and i can appreciate that but i think that a corner is to focus as well on the well to sas or is that a legionnaires bacteria infected the hotel rooms themselves the water system the showers and the lavatory sink where where the guests are going to be required to brush their teeth and wash your face take a hot shower and as a promotional damages right it's not a but don't get to stay in the room unless she pays a resort fee no i understand that but if it's if it's a two one hundred dollars room and then it thirty dollars resort fee and your comp the two hundred dollars you have to show was there's only one contract here the contract includes the resort opportunity to get you in the casino that's why they kept the room it includes your opportunity to make money from getting into the casino and th includes these can general services but it's all one happy and i'm looking at your group still in particular the proceedings below it seems to me you are arguing that these are two separate contracts not one well you know i think we claims that he entered into a contract without having the full knowledge of what that contractual terms were and here contractual terms if we're looking in terms of contract are they didn't disclose a material fact class suffer emotional damage or mental distress or anything of that nature and it is that  is no we did not plead any particular console on it of personal injury claims because that would be ill suited for a class action panel looks at what the transaction is and what information was concealed then how that information is material and whether that information would have changed the value of the hotel room that these people were pay for plan around that mr obama needs and wants an extra two minutes for his argument you'll get it to what has become a very fashionable kind of the consumer fraud case where someone buys a server or based on something being advertised and it turns out that that attribute was all although the the you your client got more than they were supposed to get because they they got the plane and they wouldn't have gotten the plane if there had been an adequate disclosure in the air that you get to get the money i suppose it was code suppose there was confirm salmonella that you had not disclose you get to keep that money even though the claim to realize the benefit of his bargain well you are look the bargain  still received everything that they bargained for they received the internet they received the the gym used and they received them at the local telephone calls acceptable to tell it they never would say that money they never were there claiming that they never would have spent that money and had had to disclosure been made so why are you and then why is your client entitled to them money well i don't i think that that type of argument ignores the benefit of the bargain analysis don't remember the details but they were advertising you know this is a person or i'm away for two hundred dollars were so in it for eighty dollars they buy the eighty dollars purse they go home they realized wait a nd they never are selling this purse for two hundred dollars it's not really a purse for two hundred dollars i got an eighty dollars purse but i wouldn't bought any of you know a person or a horse i wanted to two hundred dollars purse for eighty dollars why isn't that case similar to this one where there is the damages were recognize in that case your honor and i'm not familiar with that case but i who is the on the facts that you describe that would fall well within the rubric benefit of the bargain analysis about the buy in about a supreme court that something was represented as being more than it feel like you might expect in a room rate which they didn't pay right i mean we you know as consumers we've come to understand that room rates are often tied to the demand in a hotel there's no allegation that resort read the resort a little let's say the grain well that that's not the factual since and i understand that and i'm asking you though under that hypothetical would d they have a claim but i would have to give it some thought but i tend to think if they were deprived the benefits associated with the resort fee then they may have a claim but that's not the case here the point is having alleged that they didn't have access the same access that they would have had had they had had the hotel not have been you know at legion you know and they just they haven't alleged any deprivation of access to anything they have alleged that the product was deficient it was not as represented i mean what what if what if they used the pool and then it turned out that the pool was infected with legionnaire's disease is your position that the only way they could recover is if they actually contract legionnaires disease or that that you know the fact that they took the risk of swimming in a poor but you know would have had the potential for it some what a fireball potential of giving them the disease wouldn't that when they have a claim there it is long as they were able to take advantage of the amenities associated with that resort it gym was open the pool was open you know the internet was working and it's a local they can make impact their health assuming that's true can a class not make a claim for the distress or emotional turmoil knowing about that would cause us well your honor i i don't know if i can answer that question now because that's not the scenario with the only when there is no winning promotion or distress here and i the separate them out in two separate transactions and if you come to the same result they bargain for if we combined into they bargain for a room a roof over their head warm place to sleep and they bargain for all the amenities there's no allegation that they couldn't access the internet there's no allegation that there was leaks in their room and there's no allegation that they suffered any personal injury or act or or emotional harm whatsoever so they did under under the banner case law under the out of pocket analysis they received exactly what they what i what i was struggling with in this case is i don't see any nevada cases directly on point that would allow that either would you know say that the plaintiffs don't have a claim or that  we judge gold had asked this question before but why should we certify this to the nevada supreme court to determine for them to tell us under nevada state law whether nevada state law would recognize depreciation or or or or appreciation that need to be factored into in that analysis but that doesn't you know both those situations don't exist here i think that my time is running out but there is eleven dollars other issue i'd presumably that guest was exposed to all the other amenities that las vegas as a whole has to offer all the clubs the casinos the bars the restaurants the shows so you know it it's really hard stretch to imagine that that one sometime in june of two thousand and seventeen both of which predate that letter that defendant sent down the only other state that's that that's alleged in the complaint is mr pink staying in the hotel and some right we can see that but they need something more than you know your conclusions that we knew and again there's there's nothing in the record to suggest that that is something that may st two thousand and seventeen letter you know what what was in the hotel in september and counsel here but a minute past the extra two minutes that i think about you know if there's any judge who has further questions you should of course they should ask them and only give those rewards to advocates a hard working judges usually don't get recognition let's go forward with hotel became aware that legionnaires actually was in there and i would have a real problem if state law would require every hotel or business to disclose any investor investigation by a government agency at that that seems a bit high i mean the question is have you alleged enough here to suggest that at some point they have no