i don't know this case will go longer than that but feel free to take whatever time you need and of course you might be asking questions as we go along please respond to those questions you might notice the justice cunningham is not here but i assure you she will be listening to the arguments that we have here today and she will participate in the disposition of this case so i like the lawyers to approach the podium and state their names and who they represent for the record please if you would both now and then will you to repeat your name again when you make your a thank you thank you b touch on a couple of points first the underlying facts are not truly in dispute this is not something that what the substance of the case really involves the location of certain parties rights which it was allowing came easy to use and and allowed the defendant to use those same intellectual property rights trademarks cetera egremont was that the defendant would pay on hundred  fifty thousand dollars for the use of that they failed to pay we filed a lawsuit they did pay some but they did not pay at all we follow a lawsuit in september of two thousand and defend you it would have had to been six plus six one five is based on the pleading six one nine is based upon yes being six one nine zero and then the legal sufficien statute says that if the defendant does not reside in any county or resides outside the state of illinois then you can be brought in a case be brought in any county and in the illinois i believe that was pretty clear on behalf of the tr interests in favor of the bend it based upon the possibility that the property would need to be viewed this was not raised by the defendant it was not argued by the plaintiff it was race only by the court was based on  speculation and we believe the court erred in tilting the private interest factors in favor of the defendant based upon sure speculation and basically no reasonable court could find otherwise stand as an abuse of discretion but when that when the court makes errors in findings i believe that goes to the issue of abuse of discretion because if it's based on faulty assumptions then i believe it's of yourselves russian so i believe the the the court's finding that the property might have to be viewed was in error and i do cite a case for that proposition the public interest factor of course that there are no there is no public interest in having the case tried here and i believe on this point the five court erred as well because it clearly the the the the plaintiff was clearly a cook county resident and the case lies legion that a resident of the county in which the cases brought has a public interest in having that case tried in its own county the court also gave reason so the trial court means who fundamental was which it then uses to make a phone we believe to be an abuse of discretion fine this case should be dismissed campaign convenience grounds and i would like to address one other thing before i finish and that is defendants free the defendant in a statement of fact does not certain documents which were not are you underlying record that to the cases in illinois that if you have cites to something outside the record that should be ignored in fact a defendant admits on page twelve of the brief first for a paragraph on page twelve although with regards to convenience of the parties to try out court found that this factor did not favor one jurisdiction over the other it was not presented with all the facts mentioned above had the trial court been presented with the facts it is reasonable to believe that it would have favored broward county over cook county terms of our reputation on goodwill and our monetary and that would be the on time he made this case is seem like it's a simple collection case however this is far from a simple collection case as you notice the for number one is the plaintiff the scary number five but if you look at the contract is signed by came easy inc or it which is a florida corporation also and also rocky ayyash who hope happens to be the beneficial owner of both kerry and can be easy and if you were to read the contract it's for the amount of one hundred fifty thousand dollars however it also includes an obligation i came to z to to transfer a liquor license which has a monetary value of between like one hundred  twenty five thousand one hundred fifty thousand they're supposed to transfer it's part of the sale agreements not just the trademark agreement and we were the transfer in florida under in florida the liquor license the the value was recently over one twenty five or so and the way the contract is worded that if it's not transferred the world came to see will refund one hundred twenty five thousand of the one fifty two to buy bella as it turns out this kind this little wizened had no monetary value number one that's number two and this in a separate agreement for the sale of assets which was signed at the same time and pretty much by implication also is connected to the trademark contract they were supposed to transfer and all the assets like the chairs are bent inventoried everything at the same time by bell the group did not know that the rocky ayyash the owner of the money philip beneficial owner he was in a rush to sell it because he already assigned the interest to the landlord he was su earlier by the landlord and the landlord you know as a settlement took the assets and he agreed to leave the property by i think it will thirty yet so they want to close it was all very interesting how issues and the trial court properly dismiss a case on both grounds for one venue but bella has absolutely no ties at all with illinois in order to have ben you have to have minimal contact and ties you know that's for jurisdiction over the subject matter we're talking about jurisdiction as well ace so the statute clearly says when the defendant doesn't resi that since this is such a convoluted case and it involves fraud involving this representation and it's a local matter really in order to if we were to fire if we're to defend this case we're going to have to bring the landlord who's who owns the assets to the property we have to bring other witnesses that were there were present at the negotiations who have who have knowledge of the case and the defend the plaintiffs here one of the contract is signed by rocky sun his name is matthew is a florida resident they have a lot of business and lot of interests in florida they're the ones who build themselves to florida strongly favor of ational a little ok because broward county florida has an interest in protecting guess residents from from being defrauded freud is like a hub of fraud and they have you know they have a lot of interest in this that's where the look that's where the assets are that's where the signs and locals that's where the witness is a come from one of the main factors is a convenient and also the compulsory proper process to actually force witnesses to come to chicago we the court would have no jurisdiction to force witnesses to come and testify when injury occurred they get less deference so clearly here is this forum shopping and at the time the this lawsuit was filed they were aware of that there was a pending lawsuit in illinois in florida but they just couldn't serve to serve the plaintive so my opinion i believe he he filed a lawsuit trying to get a default judgment so so they cannot sue him in florida and as you see i attached the  case since his public records very briefly and i'm rather i'm rather shocked that the court the the court asked counsel a question early on is this part of the record and he said yes that is simply not true very talks about fraud none of which talks about a defense none of which talks about anything other than the fact that the transaction occurred in florida the finitism florida and if in plaintiff is in illinois that is all that was presented if you look on eight  the entirety of your arguments on foreign one convenience is contained in paragraph eleven twelve and thirteen on half a page and talks about the simple fact that this case should not have been brought in illinois none of this was very briefly there is no record of there was no court reporter that there's no record there's no record of the argument the court did issue obviously a written memorandum which also does not talk about any of the factors or any of the facts that counsel talked about today