decided first the action that was filed in lake county was for a temporary restraining order plymouth arion junction as we know that type of action does not seek a ruling on the merits is just to preserve the status quo case was never a party to the lake county case in fact if he wasn't privy based upon his contract he referred to contract the attorneys that we  river are the attorneys do not have an interest other than representing the clients they get paid whether they win or loose the only time i can possibly see  isn't the same here she is in the same boat as the clients what the courts are doing in those cases is to prevent you from doing exactly what you're doing here in other words there's a controversy it's all about the horse judgment through it and say ok i'm going to put the original we're going to affect everybody's going to they escort as a shield no discovery was done if we wanted to pursue a counter claim we couldn't of because the judge said the entire case is stayed in it was stayed led up to the time you know judge greg was correct when she found on the slander percentage of cases that the state order prevented us from pursuing that cause of action and that there was no obligation for us to bring a counterclaim in if you look at seven thirty five i'll see yes five to six or eight it says a defendant main not shell may the issues that we are raising in this case were never raised nor were we allowed to raise them in lake county the state order what happened in river park they filed the case in federal court because they wanted to wrap of rizal's and property they lost here and the filed the same case in state court and they probably held it's the same cause of action you lost once you don't get a second by the theoretical but i think it's occasions the she can't be found while her in trespass however that is not the law if she participated in conduct which gave her a sister a high degree daughter never saw the horse they never rode the horse they didn't have their trainer ride the horse to see if it was suitable for the daughter they didn't contact they were buying a horse that look the horse was a pretend contract and they were going to get the horse for mr hurst and his daughter and i that is not proper but we have here a self help we have an attorney to attorneys in an investment banker who decided they took their daughters and me twenty eight through my property and had them participate in this trespass and taking with these girls and if we don't get a chance to try this case these girls are going to learn it's ok to trespass and somebodies happy to think what you why it's ok to create a sham contract to get what you want it's not necessary to use the courts to resolve a civil  eighty thousand dollars to mr dickerson allegedly on a saturday wrote a check which we've never seen for thirty thousand or only mr hurst to recapture his twenty five thousand dollar investment in said i get twenty five other case dismissed you knew about first demonstrating that it wasn't lying he did nothing on this case because he wanted it he wanted that also just call as you can tell he in the defendant's didn't want to pursue the case either the rest first story or if we don't want to do anything in there was no obligation there's no law that required me as soon as that case was over through to fire at lake county the course it admonition to try and stick to manners that aren't just a repetition of the briefs but it's clear that the trial court dismissed these claims against these defendants because they truly were a thing a lake county court which contrary to the suggestion of counsel the smore name was a court of general jurisdiction address this dispute about the joint venture and the parties contacts surrounding it and the action was dismissed with case as it pertains to pretty there's no hard and fast rule and that's exactly what the courts say the issue that is generally framed is does the defendant in the second case share a legal interest with a party and the earlier the action and we've talked about the court's decision and the act off case i think it's very helpful it's a decision from this court and two thousand arrived and the only issue in their case was privity and that's a situation where a lamb or i was challenging a tax ruling that previously had been litigated by one of the landlords tenants it clearly was not the same property right and i don't think there's any case that says it has to be the same property right to the contrary but the question was either legal interest similar enough so that the parties could be construed to be in privity this court observed and i think this is a applicable to this case as well that the record was clear and this is one of the one of the factors that the it's also the shared interest issue it's not coextensive and i think another case that is helpful on this exact point is the one gone case of this court's first district two thousand and ten looking at the question out of the interests sufficiently similar this is a case where an attorney brought a subsequent lawsuit against his co counsel they have been co counsel in a class action previously where the issue of attorney's fees was addressed but in looking at the specific interest or the specific question of whether there was an interest a shared legal interest the court didn't just look at the me out of what would attorney's fees address this court language is certainly applicable here and they also the issue of attorneys he had been in just as well but the issue of the alignment of the attorneys in tryst with his client was significant to this court and it seems to me that clients to enter what the plaintiffs contend is a sham transaction obviously we we contest there and the alignment is clear from the plane its very own feeling on pleading and that was also  the way that this court reached the issue of resolving a pretty question and the doe case look at the allegations of the complaint and in their case i believe there were there was a conversion count and supposedly the the later parties were acting in concert with the parties who had been involved in the earlier proceedings i think it's clear i don't believe that  that this court should divorce the conduct of the attorneys from their client's interests i believe it is the same interest and also looking at the allegations that were raised by the plaintiffs which the plaines and discussed in their presentation and their response to the t l are all it brings all of their all of their conduct and joint conduct before the court and brought it before the court in the lake county action and i would say that and following this course president on the issue it's got to be a flexible definition and it's a definition that has to be looked at it each case on a case by case basis and i don't  see a problem arising in the future your honor if this court were to find privy here especially when looking at the specific allegations of misconduct that were raised by the plaintiffs in the lake county proceeding a sad that the attorney was acting with her clients to basically perform the trust yes and so the issue that was raised although it wasn't resolved certainly there wasn't the interests of the client and the attorney were aligned on that a show i think it's i think it i think it passes the test i believe that p s is the test that the states this court establishing the it off case as well as i by definition looking at the allegations that were set forth in the response to the row again i think that makes it very clear that we have the same cause of action and i'll no that the plaintiff doesn't did not the plainest did not even address the at element of the residue to kata and they also this and their reply they seem to have conceded that although it was challenge sure today again we go back to the complaint file cook county and look at the accusations that the shamrock defendants in the lake county case made clear it seems to me that when this quote applies the river of protest it easily passes muster single group of apple effects which is determined as a course in river park pragmatically the facts related in time space origin i think that the answer has to be yes the lake county in lake county action the shamrock cody's presented these issues it was that the issue was not just limited to interpretation of that major contract it went beyond the race the horse and the conduct of the parties and of counsel in implementing that contract or seeking to enforce their contract be the same action because the only relief sought was this a temporary restraining order for a woman or an injunction that's not the case at all the verify complaint that was filed in the lake county action establishes that there was more relief and that request it but the response to the makes it very clear that there was this specific conduct that's contained in the counts against my clients in the serious theory that we have here and if the court doesn't have questions on that issue i'll move to the last issue for residue to which is the question of a final order being entered on the merits and again i believe that that's is quite clear on this record the trial court reviewed the record very closely to reach this conclusion that believe that the orders that were entered by the lake county court certainly support that the parties were before the court again a court of general jurisdiction after the t o was entered and what did the chancery judge do the chancery judge took that contract and guided the parties basically through enforcing their contract and the there's been a lot of discussion this morning by counsel about the stay and being handcuffed first of all it seems to me quite clear from river car and from the me and vs roland case that rather a counter claim actually was filed and in the man case the core of the party was denied leave to file a counterclaim and in their case the of well that's just that's just the way it goes that was your opportunity to raise those issues and to have the medication in that did not occur and you should have filed an appeal not filed a new action but clearly the there  was not i don't believe it's accurate as counsel stated that this stay was imposed on the defendants in the lake county action it was entered into by the agreement of the parties while the contract terms basically which were in place by the judge were implemented but what are we going to do with this horse are going to do with this dispute let's look to the maze contract and move forward but  there was there was no motion for a stay and it's also not correct to say as counsel to that judgment graph in this case said that there was no need for the for coun l to seek to lift the stay in fact at page ninety five of the record of the report of proceedings you'll see that judgment graphic actually made a contrary statement when the issue arose before her so clearly under under me and under river park there is not a requirement that the court necessarily had a hearing as counsel has has argued if leave to file a the judge's order of september sixth the other was concluded and the case was dismissed with prejudice given the compliance with that word or and that they at was or frankly should have been the  case had been voluntarily dismissed by the party who later sought to bring the the malpractise action and yet it was found to be an adjudication on the merits there's there's no reason and there's no authority to conclude that the stay or order prevents operation of the doctrine the plaintiffs asserted the tortious conduct that they assert in this case and they did not take steps to pursue it and that was their choice but that doesn't affect the  correctness of judge mcgrath order may answer any questions thank you and i will stand on our brief c s to the alternative to six one five arguments thank you your honors we asked for be tough for an attorney to go ahead if he has an interest to be able to tr well it's clearly we have one defendant by the name of mr dickerson who is not a party in that case and when he revoked his contract with mr hurst that rid of any chance that he was in privy with mr hurst th that's true in the last someone who is not in a relationship the attorney client relationship is acting with the attorney and the client in that this case with mr dicker it was part of an action to get the horse to mr hurst and not be a legitimate purchaser so because mr dickerson was involved an attorney can be sued along with the client for civil conspiracy would have proven he didn't share a legal interest with that of mr hurst so i don't think the pretty issue is the big issue a szish you know what by virtue of my p o that we raise we dealt with the when in the in the record judge mcgrath found that there was identity of causes of action with regard to the claims at issue here she found that beckon pony it was matt  but even putting that to decide the issue of the transactional test seems to be ignored when you look at the plaintiff's briefs because the plaintiff's briefs as mr peppers has indicated before your honor believe six cases that have come out dealing with the doctrine of rescue to canada and the transactional test is still the law and there rose a single group of operative facts here and the facts about this claim defamation were race so as justice house raised and he asked the plaintiffs about the state issue there was nothing that precluded the plaintiffs from bringing a counter claim but asking for a ruling on their motions for sanctions or anything even in light of the state there was no order saying there was no nothing in the record that said that the judge said hey don't come to me with anything you know i'm just saying everything if it was cell important that they could raise it trice in me in the lake county action they should have got a ruling they should have received and requested a ruling there and not then wait a while and say well i didn't get a good result over in lake county so now i'm relegated to the fed to say well if you write a final order wasn't entered against mr hurst or mr dickerson but in this case as we cited not a brief there were final orders entered and the fact is action with prejudice against them thank you very much we believe that this court does not have jurisdiction for the hearst dickerson appeal there was never a final order entered against or there was never a final to give the co chair stiction that didn't happen there now addressing the other adamant judge mcgrath was correct when she have two things versus the slander pursue a number one she held this in the record that there was no that case your honors there wasn't just one plaintiff versus one defendant there were a bunch of them so handily which they which the plane of sight is authority in their own briefs clearly confirm that this court has the authority to entertain this appeal again i believe that the plaintiffs we're going back to the identity of cause of action think they're going around and around the mulberry bush they've never tackle they never tackled the transitional test they never say addressed rather it wasn't a single group of i've heard a fix the reason why they don't want to when they want to talk about well you know we were given a chance to do this or we weren't given a chance