judge newsome is in birmingham and judge carnes is in montgomery we have three appeals that are scheduled for argument this morning i'd like to thank counsel who are on the line for making yourselves available for these arguments and i think we are ready to proceed before we began i would advise counsel that we've read the braids and leave examined parts of the record that will assist you finding your arguments to the specific issues on appeal you have fifteen minutes per side and as geddes the courtroom deputy is the time keeper and she will let you know when your time to argue has expired if you have to also let you know when you have two minutes left to your argument and i think in some of these appeals i am your honor you may the firm will consider all remedies available to recover the balance due above that statement the letter separately threaten that if mistruths off fails to contact a law firm then the law firms client may consider additional remedies to recover the balance the problem is is that in between these two threats of continued collection activity is a separate sentence which flatly contradicts those two statements and in that sentence the law firm stated that the letter was intended to advise the consumer that th collectors further efforts are being terminated and that's the problem here that statement about stopping further collection efforts is inherently confusing and contradictory when considering these other statements the statement cannot possibly both be true counsel now we interpret this letter as we're not going to bother you anymore but she's still the money and we can exercise what other remedies we have how would that be a violation of the fair debt collection practices  accurate because the law firm is not saying that we're stopping current collection efforts but they may resume again in the future we're not going to collect from you now but if you don't contact us we're going to see you in the future they're saying our further efforts are being terminated and that's where i voke whatever remedies that we have under the law to collect the debt with a letter like that constitute a violation of the their debt collection practices act no you're on a continue not contact us we will consider all remedies available to contact to recover the balance due this is a law firm sending this letter there's ten references in this letter to either attorneys law firm or the firm there is that really not a veil litigation here that we will consider whatever remedies are available to recover the balance too but that can't be reconciled with a statement saying that our further efforts are being terminated either they're continuing or they're not continuing when you say that our further efforts are charter well if i accept that argument the law firm can bring a collection action and county court in order to collect the going to judgment for the two thousand five hundred dollars and of course they can bring that lawsuit and that's the whole point but they can bring that lawsuit if that's what the letter in that with the letter was advising on one hand yes on one hand it's saying that we can bring a lawsuit of course but on the other hand  whole different ballgame i mean again they can send it back to the client the client can do whatever they want in the future whether they can hire a different collector who can take their own collection efforts but this law firm says that the deck lectors further efforts are being terminated they're wiping their hands clean of collection efforts or saying we're done here so how can you possibly say that they can later go and start a collection lawsuit if i just say that we're not doing anymore collection efforts so scott and associates cannot make any for their efforts to collect the debt but another law firm could this one says that this conduct collector is terminating their further efforts what they do later that's not really address sure if they would have used the word current efforts and then that means they're terminating for now and that's a real restart of down the road that's a different story but we can't rewrite the letter we can't put words into this letter that aren't there and that's in my in our view what the lower court did the lower court said it's got an associate's notified room saw that it was seizing current collection efforts but might pursue legal remedies in the future but that's not what this letter says this letter says that it's  the letter will serve the following purposes to advise the consumer that the deck selectors further efforts are being terminated and again while it could be argued what the word further means you know the the person we're trying to protect here is not learn and if that's the case these other human beings in this butter dish really dishes throw over for a doozy this is george wilson again so i'm looking at the letter and it says the debt collector and we're talking about scott  letter says the letter says write what you just read paragraph two paragraph one says that the letter is to advise that the deck for their efforts are being terminated and then paragraph two says something which doesn't quite click with that know when she gets a letter from a law firm threatening her telling her that stuff are going to happen that hey you better contact us or this is going to happen but then it also says that you know we're terminating our further efforts she's she's not getting the information in the clear manner that f t p it once or to get it and then she doesn't know what to do with her death when that happens this is just news and let me just follow up briefly so is your point that the remedy for the violation of the statute that you have a genocide by virtue of this contradictory language that the remedy for that violation is that it's got an associate can no longer attempt to collect but another law firm may or which may not be the same thing that we sort of take the language in the letter most generous to your client determination language as opposed to continuation language and that language in another self sort of a stop gotten associates from collecting statutory damages under the act whether connect this is judge with them so to me it strikes me that that is precisely the problem that the you know the the the argument that this track the language of the statute doesn't do much for me because the language of the that basically says look if somebody tells you to stop contacting them you can't contact them unless you send them a letter that tells them one of three things either we're continuing or terminating or we're going to seek special remedies and your letter does all three simultaneously so to say that that the single letter just sort of like copies and pastes the language doesn't move me at all explain to me why it should thank you for the question exceptions in the one hundred and sixty one to see that we're looking at right now the st one that is specified is that collection efforts are being terminated and the nd one is to inform that the plaintiffs and this part goes a little bit to  what judge wilson hit correctly earlier is that the next section says that absolutely or the creditor mans of specified remedies and was talked about how possible remedies would be another those are possibilities and in our brief we do talk about how may using the word of may is not a legal problem that something will happen but it doesn't form that or that certain actions may be taken in the future and this letter puts them on notice that those actions may be taken and those that doesn't the letter also doesn't the letter also use the word will the firm will consider all remedies available to recover the balance good it does use the word well in a different sentence but it's still just a consideration i think may and will having to do with just the fact that something's being considered is really almost one in the same but do you have your adversary's point is that the target here isn't proposition i just i mean it just seems like the letter is riddled with inconsistency case donavan versus client services incorporated out of the east and district of new york and i feel that that case is very applicable to this one hand and in that case the court said that a lawyer in search of an ambiguity is more likely than a consumer to here i just think that a letter that simultaneously tells a consumer we are quitting and we're keeping on is internally contradictory i think one thing to focus on in this is the complaint and the facts alleged itself as plain just makes zero allegations that scott and associates took any further efforts or any other efforts were taken by the creditor in that they  open to more than one reasonable interpretation under the lease sophisticated consumer perspective are it's not now let's take that back isn't this open to any reasonable interpretation from the least katie consumer's perspective that they're stopping that they're withdrawing they're not going to make you for their efforts on the one hand and on the other hand they're going to say very well  it's a matter of fact you know the bolo plight language says this is an attempt to collect that there isn't it open to more than one reasonable interpretation i do not believe so because the letter says  collectors further efforts are being terminated and would be actions taking place after this letter was sent yeah anything that hasn't already been done  remedies available to recover the balance due and then he says this very letter is an attempt to collect the debt why is that not two reasonable interpretation efforts on the law firm the debt collector are being terminated by your position isn't that they can turn around and say we're just going to sue repossess i mean is that your position well one thing i do not believe that the law firm would actually be barred from filing a collection suit in this situation because they would be doing that on behalf of the creditor but again that is not something future yes depending on the interpretation of the letter itself i do think that one case that was recently decided by the th circuit is very applicable to this case at hand which would consider its own jurisdiction and that of the district court and trishul the facts or plaintiff or there were actually two plaintiffs or appellants they receive collection letters on time barred that offering discount options to pay off the balance of the debt the letter contain a statement that the law limits how long you can be sued on a debt and how long a decade appear in your credit report due to the age of the debt issue we will not sue you for it or reported on your credit report the plaintiffs in that case allege that the sentence about credit reporting and suing on the debt implied that they could be sued or it could be reported to the credit bureaus and this court found interest that the plaintiff did not have article three standing of an injury in fact the court said that this particular allegation alleged violation was not the abuse of question practices intended by congress to protect against and neither risk of risk or informational injury suffice for an injury in fact counsel were not where do we find that in your briefs this case was actually  the opinion came out after our brief and so where do we find it and where do we find your supplemental letter side to ask you where is the supplemental letter you file signing that we did not file supplemental letter on it subject matter jurisdiction is something that can be addressed at any time  express being what it is you didn't think you could get a letter to us in time but this argument at the time that i had received this case i had not thought about the recall case in the applicable applicability of case which i guess efforts continue there after and it does not close the door to the creditor taking any other remedies available to them to collect on this debt all right thank you mr martin and mr zalman i believe that a case can you cite us any precedent where assuming that this isn't internally contradictory and internally contradictory letter by a creditor like a block says it could be a violation of the act if the letter is open to more than one reasonable interpretation but then it says can't say that's inaccurate and then the nd part is that we reserve the right another word you still owe us the money and we reserve the right to invoke specific remedies which are ordinarily invoked by such a debt collector or a creditor they can do that as well too so the letter is internally contradictory but neither of those two provisions in the letter  us at this phone number otherwise the firm will that's that's an affirmative yes the firm will consider all remedies available to recover the balance due one of them within the firm can do that right of course they contradiction in the latter but with the specter of those two parts of the letter neither of them are inaccurate the law firm can see further efforts or the law firm can buy a lawsuit and then and  exercise the remedies that are provided the creditor under the act yes but one read together one of them must be inaccurate either efforts have been terminated or they haven't either we will consider further efforts or we won't but you can't do both in the same letter one on their own would not have been an issue both in the same one page letter that's an issue your honor ok there's a case out of the nd circuit that cited in the athletes beef cr prevent are these types of abuses the use of obscene or profane language threats of violence telephone calls on reasonable hours of mis representation of a consumer's legal rights disclosing a consumer's personal affairs to friends neighbors or an employer obtaining information about a consumer through false pretenses impersonating public officials and attorneys and that's what we have here   nd circuit says and i'm going to quote cases like this litigation over whether an innocuous debt collection letter is a technical compliance with the f t c p a are far afield from the original intent  stuff like that it's not just when we use obscene profane language that there's an f t p a violation of the nd circuit in that case it's a misrepresentation of the consumer's legal rights are my going to miss resale going to be sued if she if she doesn't  this isn't your typical unsophisticated consumer she did then the creditor fees and desist letter did you know we were not we don't know that that's one of the things we didn't know in this case she didn't know in the lower court and here it says that