issues here are very simple the facts are very straightforward basically all i want to add is that the complaint omitted certain allegations due to my error is the scri ner in response to a motion to dismiss i filed an opposition informing the court that i had omitted those allegations that i would be able to amend the complaint to insert those allegations but the district court still dismissed that claim based on the omission of those allegations of my understanding correctly counsel and both with respect to the  dual tracking and the twenty nine twenty three point seven the district court said with respect to your first amendment complaint counsel you've got this wrong you've got to do this this this this this and this or you're in trouble you didn't do that the court felt you had really made substantial change and so in this case dismissed wit prejudice that happens all the time doesn't it when the district courts given you an opportunity you never give me an opportunity to amend i get it but in this case he did he or she had forgotten whether this is the gender of the district judge but isn't that what happened here not exactly your honor basically i did make the changes in the new complaint and the court found those changes to be adequate only the changes i made or with respect to quote the district court clearly did not feel that you had made any substantial modifications certainly not to the degree that the court had requested you to make well the court when it was making those statements was referring to the allegations with respect to the january two thousand and thirteen loan application the court you know basically indicated that the changes that had been made with respect to the april twenty second two thousand thirteen loan modification application were sufficient and did adequately allege a jane in financial circumstances i just didn't make that change with respect to the and again the test still isn't the argument of the court didn't give me a chance and it and in fact told you exactly what was wrong with it it's that when i read a file be application or at the complaint i forgot to or due to an oversight i didn't fix the january application allegations with regard to the january application is that your argument  recollection is that the court said you need to have more specificity on how you showed a change in financial conditions that didn't specify you've got to do it to this end and if you make  allegations with regard to the general application no i made them with respect to the april i neglected to make the same ones with respect to the january given that you didn't make additional allegations with weikart to the january application having to have the opportunity to previously have men why is didn't abuse of discretion to deny you yet another opportunity to correct well i think because the tenor with regard to amendments to the complaint is that the party should not be penalize for the poor draftsmanship of the attorney and that the test is whether it's clear that the complaint could not be saved by any amendment i'm saying it can be saved by this amendment i'm you know basically throwing myself at the mercy saying i screwed up i should have made it with respect to the january two thousand and thirteen complaint  please give me this opportunity and if it is a discretionary call by the trial judge so why should we on the circuit say that that was an abuse of discretion what authority do you have to support that well because  then you can go yourself on the mercy of the district court he said no the court cases basically say it is an abuse of discretion if you can show that the complaint could have been saved by an amendment  so you know the fact that i didn't do it the first time isn't really the critical factor the factor is that if i show the court this is specifically how i will amend it to correct the court's concern th time it's two times the you know you made the change the first time and from what i understand the judge also encouraged you to do certain things at that point gave you some rather specific instructions and then you did it again so i empathize with the i really do but as my colleague has suggested we have what we refer to as a standard of review we're reviewing the work of a district judge we don't reverse district judges unless in this case he is abused his discretion and after having given you two chances to amend the second one with significant specific instructions as to what you needed to do our hands tied my recollection was that the first time it was amended was without direction from the court it was basically very well but at least you know i'm sure your support got you had an opportunity to amend it you knew what the opposition had said as to why they didn't think you stated a cause of action you could have gone through that and said ok this is what i need to clarify and i tried to clarify it the court then intervened and said you need to specifically say what documents you submitted to show a change in financial circumstances i added those documents i just neglected to do it with respect to the january two thousand and thirteen as opposed to the april i would posit that being on a second amended complaint is not an outrageous amount of tries i did satisfy the court's concern about documenting it what point does it become outrageous the third the fourth the fifth i  mean because the ninth circuit rules that governs a big broad spectrum as opposed to this particular case right well i think you know how far down the road it's a slippery slope but the second you know i don't think you can say that that is an outrageous amount and i did try in good faith to meet the court's concerns the court did say you did adequately now say that but you didn't say it with respect to this one and all i'm asking is the opportunity to do that did you make the same arguments to the district court yet as you throw yourself on the mercy of the court and say i am really sorry your honor i did my best and i'll really try harder if you do that yes and the district court said no ye and the district court say why i do not recall if they saved specifically why they just the court just basically dismissed with prejudice any other questions  nine in the reason for that is because there have been actually been eight opportunities to plead a claim against chase not this is not just the second amended complaint prior litigation was filed in this period court in orange county on one occasion was dismissed prior to the court's hearing on the second amended complaint another case was in file before the foreclosure could proceed a voluntary dismissal was filed before the hearing on the first amended complain that matter let me let me let me interrupt and focus you on an issue and this is the second cause of action  the twenty one twenty three point seven and the argument is that mr saber calls the bank nobody response how is that not a material violation of the statute statute designed to give information to consumers like this your honor i think the district court's ruling in this case is predicated on the specific facts in this case and when i say that what i mean is there was not just a it with this was not a borrower who was calling in trying to find a foreclosure prevention foreclosure alternative was given no information and the home was in notice of default was recorded in that interim and that's how it's pled in the complaint and at the stage of dismissal we have to assume facts well played in the complaint are true says we just look to see if this is a plausible claim as alleged and that is what the cause of action alleges but if you look at the factual context of the complaint what becomes evident and i think what the district court alternately relied on is th borrower in this case was in fact dealing with chase with respect to foreclosure prevention alternatives the borrower sent in a request for a loan modification a response was provided to the borrower saying we need further documents the borrower provided the further documents at which point the borrower and pleads that his application was complete so i think that what the district court was getting at is the borrower is pursuing foreclosure on prevention alternatives which is consistent with the purpose of two ninety three point seven as i understand it that the january one two thousand and thirteen date makes a difference in whether or not the bank and pursue a dual approach on this no other words it can deal with the borrower in accordance with the statute but it can also proceed with the foreclosures that right that's what the law prevents that's correct your honor the homeowner's bill of rights which isn't a nine to three point six saying there is some factual allegation about a loan modification application the second cause of action really focuses on twenty one twenty three point seven in this you know single point that the banks got to have somebody to be able to respond to questions and the allegation is they are i called nobody responded and so there's nothing that i see in the complaint unless i missed it that says that the bank provided information about alternatives to foreclosure modification well honor the complaint does allege that he applied for a loan modification that rest a foreclosure prevention alternative that's sufficient if i simply apply for a loan modification that satisfies the statute regarding a point of contact to give me the loan alternatives i  think what's missing from the complaint your honor in this case is allegations i attempted to contact chase regarding what other options were available there's no there's nothing to suggest other than the language of the statute well he says a paragraph twenty one of the second amended complaint on these dates i wrote to defended chase bank requesting information there has been no when a defendant chase who has and then talks about the elements of the statute but if no one he is pleading that no one responds but he is getting a response from chase he has played the chases sent him a letter back saying we need further information in connection with your foreclosure prevention alternative with a lot of occasions in the modification not with regard to short sale or anything else to correct and hypothetically speaking to plead i could have i would have pursued a short sale if chase had given me this alternative now i would point out that contradictory to pursuing a loan modification for a loan modification assumes that the borrower is going to retain the property for as a short sale presumed the borrower is going to liquidate the property so they are mutually exclusive so i think that the district court was basing its ruling on the the factual context of the complaint here it seems to sort of i don't know put it's just it's it seems it can to to join the two issues that if you call for a loan modification that's all you have to do and that satisfies and we respond you about a loan modification that satisfies the statute we don't have to talk about any other alternatives to foreclosure because we're giving you information on how to modify your loan we don't have to talk about short say we don't have to give you any of the other information listed in the statute is that that is at the position i'm oversimplifying it i think you i think you perhaps it's a deficiency in what's alleged there needs to i think the district court probably was finding there needs to be more facts here as to why your efforts were frustrated what is material in the violation and which goes back to my question if the bank doesn't respond and talk about that what facts can they plead if the bank does not respond if so if it's truly and a an unknowing neophyte consumer who doesn't know what short sale means who doesn't know all the all of their alternatives and the statute designed to protect that person and the bank doesn't respond to given that information how is the plate of supposed to plead this is a material problem that i would suspect your honor that the efforts to contact filed against j p morgan chase bank i mean in this court in this court there were there was a third amended complaint later filed as to the seventy two hundred action at this point in time this was the third complaint filed be with respect to the first of many complaint the district court had specifically advised counsel this is what needs to be played with respect to the two nine to three point six in the two nine to three point seven filing shit so the district court unlike in the previous case it said this what you need to do to straighten this out and it didn't happen right that's correct and as if i understood your comment as well you're saying that while it's true that we take a complaint complaint as being true for purposes of call b six that in as part of the complaint itself that the plaintive noted a response from chase asking for additional information there right that's correct kind of internally inconsistent finds as a as a reason to dismiss an amended plea is this the last case in the hopper or are there other state court complaints floating around with respect to this bar with respect that this borrow in this particular property to pick up on what your honor indicated which is it's not internally inconsistent in that the whole purpose stated purpose of the california homeowner bill of rights is to make in this case had an obligation to in writing indicate to the bar where each and every possibility for rehabilitation that might exist i would say that  statute basically indicates that if somebody contacts the bank and basically indicates that they're interested in pursuing loan foreclosure of void and alternatives that the bank has to appoint one person who can basically provide all that information and will provide all that information the fact that the borrower out of ignorance just did a loan modification doesn't mean he would have been interested and short sale or some other there any case law that suggests that there's an affirmative obligation for example on behalf of a bank to discuss short sales for example i believe the twenty one twenty three point seven and the