would like to address that thank you after the court brought that issue to our attention i did do some legal research and i believe that i found several cases which would support this court having jurisdiction and i'd like to briefly address a few of those cases implications of the st is the illinois supreme court case of towns versus yellow cab company seventy three  interests are intertwined with the interests of the parties did filed a motion to dismiss and that was granted that the court can have jurisdiction in the towns case th case was a personal injury case as a result of a automobile accident and the trial court had dismissed the plaintiff's complaint with prejudice as a result of failure to answer discovery there after the  cab driver defendant smith was served and filed a motion claiming that the earlier judgement as to the cab company was ready to take out the trial court granted that motion and dismissed the case against mitt with prejudice that court affirmed as did the supreme court and the supreme court noted that the judge in a pretty either the master or a servant arising out of an action predicated upon the alleged negligence of the servant bars a subsequent suit against the other for the same claim of negligence even when that party is not a suit at the time the judgment is enter or has not been served when the party was when the judgment entered excuse me i'm sorry thousand a year two thousand case in that case so this court also found it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal that if plaintiffs in a case had sued seven defendants then only three of them had been served the three served defendants joined in a motion to dismiss which was granted by the trial court in considering whether it had jurisdiction this court stated we must determine whether the trial court intended its dismiss to be only with regard to the serve defendants who pursued the motion to dismiss or whether intended to dismiss the complaint in its entirety merit court held that since the liability of one of the serb defendants was quote predicated in  words looking at the allegations of the complaint and maggie's legal inferences there from i think it supports an allegation that the intent of all of these well the both the merit case and the town's case say that one of the important factors is the trial court's intent whether the trial court intended to dismiss the action as a whole and granted its motion to dismiss that order was entered on a case management order which line five provides for any future date to be entered which was left blank i believe that evidence of the trial court's intention that the entire case was dismissed at that time similar early marriage in towns in fact there were no further proceedings in the trial court i think the parties to the case believed and acted as if the case itself had been disposed i think that in part is evidence to by none of the police in this case raising the issue of jurisdiction either i believe everyone thought the case had been fully defendants active in the well those those go to the fund it did not are not the subject of this appeal on with respect to iran her he was never part of the case he was never served so i don't think he really comes into play in terms of when was there a final judgment on this appeal after november th two thousand and eighteen there were no motions to reconsider filed or these defendants were there or the only thing that happened after that was there was a approve of damages against sick sixty two a whole see that's not being appealed and then urban realty did file a motion to that again i wanted to reserve some time in case your others had any questions with regard to the khalifas defendants at police position and happy to speak to any of the questions or the issues we think prior paragraph thirty four saying that my client's had any relationship with or hired the other one quote actors and we think that that was dispositive we think that's what the drug court looked at in addition to the affidavits that were filed that were not and nineteen and at that time there were no further claims pending before the court i think that is further evidence by the fact that on april th two thousand and eighteen when the trial court denied my motion to reconsider it also denied my request for three or four a language has two counts one through six of the complaint because there were still parties in claims that he had not been adjudicated