refile the case here the day after the indiana trial court dismissed my client's divorce petition which we do do we treat this case like it's just another divorce case and proceed to litigated in i think that that answer in part lies with looking at what the what the court did the court what was before the court was a three count motion two counts for to dismiss the other comp was for this was for the stay all of which were denied the first two stay while at the same time denying the motions to dismiss without prejudice affectively re inviting me inviting me if the indiana power court reverses and reinstates the case to renew the motion to dismiss and seemingly he would logically do so again because he already did it once for the abuse of discretion is to just in books just a book to issue a blanket denial of the state and to treat this case like it's no other case and to proceed to have hearings on temporary transport and temporary maintenance and temporary attorney's fees and temporary injunctions and to proceed to litigate the case and do discovery and cause both parties to exhaust their resources pain attorneys to do all this work that for work they may ultimately end up being for not get to just proceed to treat this case like it's no other it ignores the possibility that the case is going to be reinstated in indiana who do all kinds of work in this case exhaust the resources of the marital estate pain attorneys to do a bunch of work keep have hearings into discovery all for a case then they ultimately end up being just dismissed again it gets neither party it's a neither party's interest to treat this case like as if the potential for the indiana appellate court or real practical solution to this problem is that if if it is in doubt if the if the case below is ultimately going to proceed and seemingly under the very unique facts of this case that decision rests in  review if that divorce petition is reinstated if it is in doubt the case below is ultimately going to proceed the court should do nothing the court should pause the proceedings and wait to see what happens now i want to ask you to think about that proposition in three of those orders are orders granting or denying a motion to transfer a case on statutory venue bounce orders denying a motion to dismiss a case when the defendant was saying illinois doesn't have personal jurisdiction blue brief in this case the opposition in this case effectively makes two arguments that well they argue for the first time on appeal that be indiana action the indiana now that the cases in the in the an appellate court that it is no longer a pending action the actually the opposite is true that that he actually is prejudiced it by the by the absence of a stay why do i say that because what interest does the apple e have in both sides of this case exhausting their resources pain attorneys to do discovery in service of pina's and have hearings all for work then they ultimately end up before not this judge by his own admission by denying the motions dismissed without prejudice effectively say bring me back that motion if they reinstate scase but meanwhile we're going to allow the parties to exhaust the marital estate pain attorneys do work that is going to get neither party closer to what each of them wants which is the entry of a judgment for dissolution of marriage that work is transferable that it is transferable but i don't think that the costs part of it is transferable we still have to we may be able to transfer the documents the same a trip to new would be in the end attorneys would have to be repaid to reeducate themselves about all of those issues so that there's a certainly it would not have to invest as as much time i would i think that's a fair statement i took a lot of the documents before this but still you still have to reeducate everybody i knew set of attorneys in entity to do that this and that and that is and i think that's why the claim of prejudice is not that i think it would actually true is that the absence of the absence of stays what is what is actually prejudicial is that it is a no is neither part response to my motion it says that the tribal court describing the concaved the trial court granted a stay of proceeding pending the only supreme court's anticipated ruling as to whether the plaintiff's claims against certain defendants were barred by the statute of limitations and the statute of repose a reversal by the supreme court would terminate the litigation against the defendants let's just what we're saying here why go through all this work what happened there is the fourth mr to said stay the case because what the supreme court is doing in the second appeal is going to materially snus and we're not going to proceed to the prudent thing to do is nothing and the end to consider the the wisdom the exhaustion of resources that we're just going to go through to go through to litigate this case and treat this case as if the potentiality for the indiana courts of review not that's not reinstating the case more effectively crossing our fingers and hoping it all works out that's not i don't and that's why i think it is an abuse of discretion you know at the at the at the very least what should have happened here was this you know a state could have been granted condition on the payment of some amongst child support because that's probably the closest thing to a public policy order that could be entered maintenance  morning your honour's anybody who's ever practiced law in the domestic relations division of the circuit court of cook county for any length of time and who has any experience whether as a judge or a litigant knows that everything you've just heard has no relation to reality we're talking about a circuit court judge exercising discretion you've been not been given a single argument as to why what the circuit joerg court judge did was beyond the range of reason in light of illinois law in light of the facts of this case and in light of what everybody knows about life so what does the law command death circuit court children during and after litigation including a vision for timely award of interim fees to achieve substantial parity in the party's access to funds for litigation so people whose lives are in disarray whose family is been being broken apart or has been broken apart because of the force are entitle to relief from the court to protect themselves and to provide a remedy and to allow them to live while the case is pending litigation he said they're asking for stable litigation but the fact is life cannot be stayed life goes on every day people need food they need clothing they need to pay bills they need to drive cars they need to fill up with gas what mr ahmed is asking is that you apply the golden rule that he who has the gold makes the rules that he be the judge that he decides i knew zone without judicial interference whether or not he pays mrs  d one nickel she doesn't have to be at his mercy she has filed a petition for this solution a marriage a motion to dismiss that was tonight that denial of the motion to dismiss is not before this court at the time she filed her petition for dissolution of marriage nothing was pending in indiana the appeal was filed afterwards and even when the appeal was filed it didn't change the fact that there was no pending divorce case in indiana the only game in town the only petition for dissolution of marriage is right over there a couple blocks away in the circuit court of cook county and the only judge with the authority and the ability at this point in time to consider my client request for temporary support for herself and for her the minor child at the time but who still in high school now and is still living with her and who still needs support and was still entitle to child support under section five  five five ten and five thirteen of the illinois just flew for marriage ect are running out of money they're down to their last dollars and they asked what she alleged and when she stepped into that courtroom that is the petition that the circuit court judge was faced with and  as the petition that he was faced with when mr ahmed threw his lawyers who presumably were being paid to make the argument said don't do anything judge don't even consider that petition locker out of the courtroom she doesn't need your help she doesn't deserve your help it's all going to be for naught and his lawyers who are asking for peace to present the case to the court because he's saying now we're just doing it for ourselves we don't care about our clients we just want to train up a file and make money nothing well i mean i can give reasons why the judge didn't want to be ok the reasons why the judge didn't abuse of discretion are ninety four old first of all there was a compelling and immediate need to grant temporary relief as set forth in the petitions there's a petition for temporary restraining order pulmonary injunction alleging possible dissipating of assets or disposal of assets there was a petition for temporary support there was a petition for temporary attorneys fees all of these things need immediate relief whatever happens in the future in indiana whether it's three or four months from now or through a further appeals to a supreme court and a case was on for many many months or years between now and then there is a need for immediate relief the worst cases are on like any other cases it's not just here's what happened let's get a decision if somebody was right or wrong guilty or not guilty there is there are needs it that and and issues that have to be addressed in the meantime and guess why it's not like any other cases inside it's you regarding a state so when this judge decided not to grant the stay and decided that there are needs that need to be addressed you have not been  single case or given a single reason why they actually acted beyond the range of reason can arguments be made against or in favor of a stay sure they've made arguments but the fact that arguments can be made in favor of  stay doesn't mean that the court appears that's a scrushy in denying the state and to respond to some of the points made by counsel counsel argued all the arguments that counsel made really are asking your because what's not for naught is my client's need for media relief regardless of what the a court does months or a year or whatever it is from now things are happening on the ground now that need to be addressed and none of it will be for if there is a question as to whether or not it was an abuse of discretion because just there will be discovery in the case they'll be money spent will be things done well as your honor pointed out the documents are the same regardless of whether they're being looked at by it in vienna judge or by an l annoyed judge finance the finance or the saying the expenses of the same the incomes the second and these are the same all of this work has to be done in order for these people to get divorced and in order to decide what's at the very least even in the interim what temporary relief should be granted and i should point out also that nobody is questioning whether there should be a divorce here mr ahmed in his response to the petition for dissolution of marriage in this case asked the court in this case the grants him a dissolution for america dissolution from of marriage so it's not as if my client is asking for relief in this court that another court would not grant because he was also asking for a dissolution of marriage in the other case so the ultimate relief of this solution of marriage is going to be granted in america where it is and that's what this case is moving toward however without determining at this juncture whether it would be appropriate for the l and i courts to grant the ultimately the grant the dissolution for marriage whenever that happens to you know permanently  divide the marital property or to work permanent maintenance or child support right now there is an urgent and compelling and demonstrated need for interim relief that would be interfered with and and and and denied if the case were stayed pending that the trial court certainly has discretion down the road to decide whether it should grant funding relief or whether it should wait for the indiana court to decide the case but we're not there yet that issue isn't before the court today i would stay i think i've made my point just as to why the courts properly exercised its discretion destruction why there is no abuse of discretion if your honour's have any there is indeed a lot of emotion in the blue prefers a lot of emotion what you just heard and none of it supported by the record there's the desperate pleas for injured relief are not borne out by the record or simply a petition for temporary support somebody with no evidence three determinations one as of the truth of any of the allegations in the record and i would suggest to you that the desperate pleas that you're hearing for relief are not supported by her but by the apple these actions and the apple these actions embark on expensive post judgment proceedings to reconsider the dismissal which she writes then she didn't appeal that she go back after that to apply to the indiana trial court for temporary relief no she forged ahead and got the indiana case dismissed and now she comes before you and says well illinois is the only court that can help me but that is a situation that is if that is a if that is a that is a self  created situation she's the one that created the situation and i and to be honest i'm not so sure that it's even true i don't know necessarily why she couldn't apply under these facts and circumstances to the indiana public court for temporary relief