please the court counsel enhanced recovery sent a collection letter on thursday april st two thousand and sixteen offering three settlements which the consumer had to remit by may t h two thousand and sixteen after stating the three actions it said were not out of the gate to renew this offer this letter serves as notification that your delinquent account maybe was ported to the national credit  payment of the offered settlement settlement amount will stop collection activity on this matter and then it notes that it will that restore your service with the telecom carrier if you want to do that you must pay in full it yet reported or it could have stated we are in the process of reporting you're dead the issue arises because the reporting took place on sunday april th by the if you look at it from the standpoint of when the consumer opens the letter and has a chance to act on it yes at that point it has already been reported so here any of those either saying that it had testify of what the intent of the letter was in particular in connection with the march letter and they stated that we wait thirty three dollars to forty five dollars days before reporting to quote allow the six thousand and ninety two to notice to be received a consumer to be able to respond prior to the credit reporting although that's not a legal requirement we do that sometimes because clients want us to and have it in our statement of work and other times because it's best practice so e c intended to threaten to damage credit if you don't pay so yes under the circumstances it is highly material credit reporting is important to consumers a statement doubt we will damage your credit if you don't hate coupled with a specific future date is very material that they're off they're demanding money upon paying of credit reporting and what they're not saying is we've already by the time you get this your credit will already have been damaged nothing you can you can do to prevent that and they're asked me to pay nine hundred hours yes that's  pantoja this court held that the defendant was liable it was affirming a summary judgment for the plaintive even though quote we are not sure that the only reasonable way to read defendant's letter is the one suggested but we are confident that that is one reasonable way to read it close quote and then where the f t c b a requires clarity ambiguity itself can prove a violation and that is collectors are required to kill the boilerplate language to avoid ambiguity close quote in lax this court approves a statement from the th circuit that its language quote can reasonably be interpreted to imply that the debt  i found the interpretation of the letter odd because it str thirdly that the fact that paying one of the offered settlement amounts will stop collection activities on the debt and from the three largely unrelated point johnson defendant's witness testified in connection with the st of the three letters but that that was the intended meaning so the defendant is now contending that the meaning which it admittedly sought to convey with the st of these letters  is not reasonably derived from the nd of the letters it is if there was no requirement for example that they say anything about whether the debt would be reported to national credit bureaus the defendant is not a financial institution as defined in the fair credit reporting act is and is under no obligation whatsoever to make any statement on that subject it nevertheless chose to do so and to wedge that one sentence in between pay the settlement a certain date and payment of the offered settlement amount will stop collection activity in this matter it then elaborates on what the payment of the settlement amount will do what it will not restore your service for that you have to pay in full but there would be no stop collection activity the necessary implication of wedging in the credit of the gratuitous credit bureau statement in between the other two statements is that the collection activity includes credit bureau notification and that's what the defendant's witness testified was the intent of the letter the district judge recognized in denying the motion to dismiss that this is a reasonable interpretation of the letter it the the reason we lost in summary judgment is that the district court decided and i submit erroneous late that extrinsic evidence is required where the judge perceives the district judge perceives that a statement is in big us on its face and that is is not correct this court has explained for example in taylor versus cavalry that the you need extrinsic evidence where quote a judge might be mistaken in supposing that a letter was so clear to him as it would that was clear to him was clear to unsophisticated debtors and so it is open to a plaintiff in any but the clearest case to present objective evidence of confusion for example the results of the consumer survey close quote but here the judge the district judge stated that this better is the meaning which we proposed to be put on it it is at a minimum ambiguous if not outright false furthermore that meaning was that  were port to credit bureaus the natural meaning of collection activities as found in multiple cases includes credit reporting it is if you look at the letter  types of collection activity are referenced the only specific thing that is mentioned is credit reporting restroom i mean restoration of service was not strictly credit reporting is not strictly collection activity and nothing else is mentioned so i think this letter is is crafted and in connection with a march letter intentionally crafted to convey a batch collection aked that th credit reporting is part of the collection activity and that the purpose of the letter is to get the consumer to pay either in full or settlement because they wish to avoid having their credit d plaintiff has asserted here are interpretations of a single line in the collection statement namely the letter serves as a notification that your delinquent account may be reported to the national credit  that's the point if inter said as it has not yet happened but it may happen either of those two interpretations in the reading of this letter are entirely true so the primary  and there's been several statements and characterizations regarding the intent behind the use of this language that the purpose of the f t c p a is to curb abusive debt collection practices the suggestion that putting a consumer on notice that his or her credit may be affected by the collection account is a notice that is helpful to the consumer it is not report to the credit of yours and the deposition testimony of mr davis that was referred to by those in counsel is that if at any point prior to the date that the account is actually reported and there could be circumstances where the payments will is made there are circumstances when a settlement payment plan are put in place even if that plan is not yet complete if it's in place and the account holder the de is complying with that plan then it will not get reported even if as opposing counsel referred to it it was already placed in the process of being reported that process will be telling your and all men in correct when he  testimony and that is in our brief at page thirty one dollars so mr davis testified so today as it's always been if they pay in full or agreed to pay the settlement in full prior to the date in which the account is scheduled to credit report we avoid credit reporting on that account and he goes on to say that as long as they maintain their monthly or weekly or bi weekly or whatever their agreement is that they made as long as they maintain an agreement and follow through with it  there was a previous letter that contained the same language and collection companies through their compliance efforts put enormous time into being careful because they are regularly in lawsuits like this to make sure that it is not a statement the consumer could respond report the debt the account to get recalled by the by the creditor a settlement plan could be made and you know we've been focusing on communications by letter but my client contacts account holders by telephone and communicates by telephone much more frequently than it does by letter and so communications can take place in between then where the debtor may say no this is not my account that is not my social security number there could be fraud claims there's any number of circumstances which would interrupt that process and so in addition if this is a st letter that the plaintiff receives if we make a threat that we are going to report on a specific day and that falls within the six thousand nine hundred and thirty dollars day validation period then you have an overshadowing claim and so there are all of these various pitfalls that putting in a specific date  can put undue undue value on a date or suggestion in a letter and so there are there are many legal reasons why it's dangerous to go that route and in fact may suggest to the  plaintiff an occurrence that that may not occur and so this information that we're providing is in fact helpful information for a consumer consumer wants to know if this is going to affect their credit  requires other institutions to notify of wine because it's helpful for the consumer it's good for the consumer to know so they can dispute it so they can take action the state of california also requires it and they require a specific statement along these lines that  either before it's been reported or within thirty days after of being reported and so that the characterization of this as as a collection tool is a threat or as some type of abusive practice i think when you start from the from the point  to report on the credit that is one hundred percent accurate statement the nd statement or interpretation offered by plaintiff is that it has not yet been reported but it will be reported that also is a one hundred percent accurate statement both it was not deceptive it was a true statement if you would turn to the juxtaposition of the two sentences in the letter that are at issue here so far you've been focusing on the st one sure in iso says please remit by may twenty six they at the end of the and then you also have the we are not obligated to renew this offer which is the safe harbor language of the th circuit has promulgated and then in a separate paragraph it says this letter serves as the notification that your delinquent account may be reported to the national creditors again that is something that your c believes the consumer should know and then it goes into an explanation of what will happen if you accept the above settlement offer it is not a if you if you don't take it this is what's going to happen the context of that paragraph is if you accept a settlement offer here is what's going to happen collection activity will stop and the unsophisticated consumer and their mind the collection activity would be they're not going to get letters they're not going to get calls are not going to get bugged the issue will go away and then the other consequence of accepting a settlement offer as opposed to paying in full is explained here it says that we will inform sprint that it has been resolved but unless it's paid in full you will need you will not be able to renew service with sprint and so  you know we offer a very different view of this that it's a it's an offer a settlement it's a notification that the credit could be reported and then it talks not about a threat of reporting if you don't settle but here the consequences of accepting a settlement and in your view that's the only reasonable interpretation of this the it's not reasonable to infer that an unsophisticated consumer would interpret the two sentences the one about your delinquent account may be reported to national credit bureaus and the following sentence that payment to be offered settlement will stop collection activity for a reasonable or excuse me an unsophisticated consumer to understand that accepting the offer the settlement offer will halt the credit you're reporting i think again that that is a very sophisticated interpretation of this letter that i think plaintiff's counsel can articulate very well but i don't believe that an unsophisticated consumer could articulate well but again i would go back to the fact that based on the  ition testimony of jason davis if a settlement is accepted before the reporting occurs it would in fact stop the credit reporting so again that is a true statement but it doesn't stop credit reporting that has already occurred obviously that's correct that's i mean that's the theory of this is misleading but as the district judge said in this case that requires ways could be interpreted reasonably in a variety of ways and not only oh it's not a category one it's not a category three it's in the middle requiring extensive katherine's writing and not only would it require terms of evidence but it would require proof will you know that the question about what is the proper way to say this are should we have said it has or in this letter it has already been reported absolutely not i guarantee you that your c would be sued if it sent a letter that said this is already been credit reported and it was a report for another six or seven days what is that because why it why is that important because then in the mind of a consumer he say he gets this letter before it's reported that is going to affect his his or her decision making because he say well alternative is not available the next to turn of that you know suggesting that it may be reported imminently or it will be reported eminently again gets into timing issues that cause all sorts of problems under the f so in our view any offered alternative to this very benign statement is only going to lead to additional violations  acceptance of the settlement may have tax consequences and they focused on what is may mean there are they threatening to send in a one thousand and ninety nine dollars forgiveness of debt and then there is the argument that they didn't have the authority to do that and so they got into you know how should we interpret may and even though the th circuit acknowledged that there are alternative interpretations to may meaning that it's a possibility vs it will happen or a future possibility and it may have implications on what  conduct the collector may carry out the court said that you know the use of the word may does not compel a conclusion that the statement is deceptive even if there are these alternative interpretations that are  payment plan and the problem with that proposal was that it was a trap because once the plant once the debtor made a settlement payment that didn't renew the statute of limitations so it wasn't the alternative issue that was the problem it was the fact that it was a your honour's the consumer wants to know whether they can avoid having their credit clear the problem is that by the time the consumer receives this letter reporting will have taken place the letter went out is dated on a simply not going to happen the reporting took place on sunday incidentally the same language was repeated in again in the june letter which is a month and a half after reporting had already  d so they're not being careful as to misleading people if the credit reporting was not meant to be an inducement to pay the money it wouldn't have been in there it is not required  and the purpose of this was to convey save your credit paid by paying money there is no overshadowing issue the testimony was as they weighed thirty three dollars to forty five dollars days there is a date for payment specified in the letter it is always thirty three dollars to forty five dollars days after the date of the letter of waiting any such problem there is no safe harbor issue the safe the every language is intended to protect defendant against the claim are if we make the same or better offer later that it was misleading not to disclose the limits on our settlement authority it has absolutely nothing to do with this case dunbar's also very different in dunbar the court found that there was nothing misleading about saying that a settlement may have tax consequences the action being described was the action of the internal revenue service based on information which the debt collector did not have and both a debt collector consumer knew the debt collector didn't have namely their financial circumstances and the content of their tax return since it was possible but not certain may was found appropriate it was not found to be ambiguous it was just found not to be misleading the issue as to what extrinsic evidence i think is lonely stated  letter but somebody who is careless and not careful with the english language might put their meaning on it the court said that from the day the survey to establish that this isn't the sort of letter change the meaning that we contend for namely that you can avoid damage to your credit by payment is evident on the letter the district court show held in a motion to dismiss