clarke we have here today is a twelve b six situation where their lawsuit was dismissed in the district court  and it appears from the judge's opinion that he was dismissed because it didn't have the the language damages they suffered were a reasonable reasonably forseeable result of defendants inducing them to send application materials for a loan modification program hamp for which they could never qualify ok well let's get down to the nitty gritty here what we did allay was that this series as the fifth circuit has said before is a calf cascade saga when these when these homeowners are applying for loan modifications  just just like a when mail it just keeps going forward with more and more paperwork more documentation more this more that i know you've heard this hassle before probably is a in times so anyway what we did plead was that all of these things that they went through were a proximate yes and then they were denied that's correct and then the the young the young well fargo the bank people the defendants suggested well you didn't make that but we do have a program that you may succeed yes knowing that they cannot provide the service for which the so called documentation was required well that's close your retirement what it is that the reality will is the position that everyone has taken but i think that the reality is is that this lender would not do it because of in head a procedure of not doing it because of the what did they do wrong what they did wrong was asking us for information over and over and over again for a ham play and if they were never going to give them ok tell don't know is there any information they specifically provided in hampton they did not provide additional application from loan modification well i don't know all the details yet because we were not able to discover  your plot yes but what i can tell you is that in the fall of two thousand and thirteen they submitted everything and again it is i think it was september and then again  that that camp is the basis of your frog and you're claiming that the fraud is that they were part of nation knowing that they could not provide the service they were promising yes and you can't tell me when when they provided the information respect  for purposes of getting consumer information well i mean it's it's undisputed that that we supplied additional information about what that detailed information was i don't have all the rights that you cla to say that well this theory of we we have this theory of recovery and we're asking for these damages relating to this theory of recovery and then when we go to the next theory of recovery then we have these  through relate to this theory of recovery and we can do that but that's that's unusual as is for time i think what i think the confusion here ears are we know for example there was confusion on what damages related to what claim i think that's that should be hanging with a twelve eat motion for a more definite statement client are claiming is that what's left of our to our claims the one that we appealed and believe that we have the best chance for bail on is this issue of having to go through should have been because it states a claim a violation of the t t c or a in particular this section that i just read and it states that as a proximate result of the here communications in connection with the negotiation of a loan do not concern the collection of a debt but instead relate to its modification and thus they do not state the claim under section three ninety two point three zero four payment plan was being created that's not the issue here but what parts of the action addition to those first two is that they received the december thirteenth letter and they seem to put significant application is not in the record i don't know what's they say they submitted requested documents they don't say what document it all say what if any was different between things that they did going back as far as two thousand  thirty three where they say defendants deceptively instructed in encouraging claims to apply for the help loan modification represented that the loan was an underwriting even though they have seen which is wells fargo did not modify did told the parts you will receive a loan modification that the december thirteenth letter says we're going to review your documents to determine if you are eligible for a loan modification and there simply is no affirmative statement that is remember all the details of the best night case and the choppiness case but i don't think that they or on point with what we have here what is the fraud allegations you know thinking of mr clark for applying for the home affordable modification program  and they say in part here now that we perceive your documents our loan processing team will carefully review what you've submitted to determine if you are eligible for a mortgage payment relieve under the home affordable mortgage program and then the letter goes on to say i have a follow up with you by sunday january twelfth to atlanta next steps in the process and address any additional documents that might be needed to complete our review while we are reviewing your information and if permissible by state law in your home will not be referred to foreclosure or seldom foreclosure sale was whether there was any false representation or deceptive means to collect a debt that's not the basis of this theory of recovery but in the letter you just read exhibit  the whole thing is misleading well it says when you stop reading soon after you stop reading says as a reminder it's important to you to dream making your regular mortgage payment on to you hear from us i mean you didn't something that would be michael there's been a number of them so i'm sorry it looks like looks like i'm out of time but i would like to answer your question