credit this is a case about a single unanswered phone call and a claim that unanswered phone call violates the fair debt collection practices act the facts in this case are undisputed and straightforward plaintiffs sent a department on may th logged plaintiff's complaint recognizing the cease and desist so that no further communication would be made with plaintiff in between that time on may th metacritic system placed a single call to raised in the trial court it was not raised in the briefing on an appeal here and i'll tell you why however standing is it jurisdictional issue that can be raised at any time and in order for this court to issue an opinion here it has to find the plaintiff had standing to bring her claims here plaintiffs conceded that she has suffered no emotional are no actual damages she's not seeking actual damages she doesn't claim an entitlement to them that's in the appendix at page sixty but she is seeking statutory damages yes your honor however the district court in evaluating whether or not plaintiff had article three standing went through and acknowledged that since the supreme court's decision spokeo vs robins the th circuit has not directly addressed standing in the context of an f t c p a a claim so the district court look to other circuits and district courts and found that in the district court's view there's a distinction between procedural violations and substantive violations the district court determined that if a plaintiff alleges that a substantive violation that's enough to convey standing five days after the briefing in this case was finish the seven circuit court of appeals which obviously has a sister circuit issued seven decisions six of those in december one in january of this year it is the st comprehensive analysis of standing following the decision in spokeo versus robins the th circuit went through and st started with a discussion about this substantive birth versus procedural violation the st case i would draw your attention to his gun versus thrasher bushman and vocal and certainly your owners were concrete injury and what the th circuit held is that in order to establish an injury in fact to establish article three standing a plaintive has to prove that he or she took some action to their detriment in response to receiving a communication an example that the court gave was paying a debt that they did not owe but at the end of the day the court is clear that the plaintiff has to has to prove what they did or what they would have done differently had they not been subject to the communication here the only communication was an unanswered mate telephone call plaintiff did nothing in response to that call ultimately should contact the lawyer and filed the lawsuit however the  circuit in these decisions has has held that that does not convey standing under article three i'm there for your members we would ask that this case be dismissed for lack of standing yes or any limit to what you're talking about can the de collector continue to just call and call and call i'm sorry for purposes of article three standing what we're talking about yes to be in front of the federal court yes i mean those cases can be brought in state court but in order for the federal court to hypotheticals but in order to establish standing in this is the case under every federal statute a plaintiff has to establish an injury in fact not just a violation of the statute so to the extent that the court finds the plaintiff does have standing to bring her claims i want to move into application of the bona fide air defense the trial court found here that metacritic violated the f t c p a because it plays a single phone call to plaintiff after being told to stop after the day after it physically received the letter even if if that was correct medically they should not be held liable for that violation if the bona fide air defense applies there's three requirements under the bonafide a defense st the violation have to be unintentional nd it has to have resulted from a bonafide error and rd it had to be made despite the maintenance procedures reasonably adapted to avoid the error whether i to fight about whether three days is reasonable or not does it does it for purposes of your legal argument does it matter that the phone call was placed within twenty four hours or do we only look at the reasonableness of the three day procedure that your client had in place either way i think we prevail your honor but certainly here the facts of the this case is as you set forth the letter was physically received twenty four hours later th  i'm going to skip over the st two elements the district court found don't skip past bonafide error without you oh no yes was there an error and how was a bona fide error was contacting a consumer after being told to stop that's and that was played in the alternative but there's no question in the record that made a credit physically receive the letter on may th and contacted plaintiff via phone on may th the district court found that that did violate the f c with respect to whether it was unintentional and bonafide the court found that it was unintentional and it was bona fide and the evidence that supported that was a soon as the communication was logged in the system it was correctly quoted no further calls were placed after may th when the letter was coded yes judge phillips please go ahead ok yes so from our perspective your honor we believe that the district court properly found  at the error was contacting someone after they were asked to stop but that it was unintentional and that once the letter was processed undisputedly no further contact was made via phone as requested by playing to so then if we get into the nature of the procedures it's important and i think that's one answer your question judge don't get that it's important to remember how this case came up with the district court plaintiff's move for summary judgment on therefore she was required to establish it they just have to say that the defendant hasn't presented evidence that they have to this reasonable procedure then you have a duty to present evidence of a reasoned procedure describes the procedures is mostly barebone it doesn't say anything that would give you comfort that this is done in a timely fashion and i can move on to that your honor that's that's a motion f is the sure this case is just like the tickets for cases that we cited in our briefing i want to start with the gephardt pace the get her case set forth the framework for how you determine allocation of the bonafide air defense in the cont by the debt collector shows that it codes how it codes its account st for communications to stop isn't enough the rd step your honor which is what you're getting to is does processing time undermine the reasonableness of those policies and physically picked up the ladder and when the debt collector logged to that in that system and the isaac case found that that three day processing time was reasonable and therefore did not undermine the ultimate reasonable notice of the debt collectors policies and procedures and frankly that just makes sense the the purpose of the bonafide air defense is to protect debt collectors who certainly are attempting to comply with the act and have an error that they have addressed in their policies and procedures so that it doesn't happen again here in the air or it's important to remember the air is contacting somebody after they were told to stop the district courts have said that it reasonable reasonable honest that is a question that should have gone to the jury so the court should have denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and a trial should have been held with respect to the reasonableness of the procedures and again in the context of plaintiff moving for under the f t c p a here missed by the credit mislead via an initial letter seeking to collect and allege medical debt and response she timely exercised her f t c p a right and center written dispute of the debt the receipt of w required many credit to cease collection until obtaining and mailing her verification her letter also demanded medi credit cease and desist from placing calls to her many credit received a letter on may th and stamped it as received that day the letter then continued through medic read it to mail process which inexplicably is designed to allow a three day lapse between receipt of the letter and when the consumers file is notated unsurprisingly many critics called her during this lapse violating section six thousand and ninety two because of the statute itself your honor and the elements of the statute the elements don't look to when the error happened it looks to whether the error was unintentional whether it was a bona fide and whether the debt collector had procedures in that were reasonable and whether the procedures were reasonably adapted to avoid the specific error and that's why that's important here so st i want to note that the court did not enter summary judgment so a sponsor miss loopy moved  noting defendant had produced no evidence and discovery identifying an error identifying procedures identifying how they were tailored no evidence related to its defense by doing this the burden shifted for them to show a genuine issue of fact for trial their response acknowledged the elements and although inadmissible presented evidence an argument in support of the defense further they moved for summary judgment on their own defense as well the district court ultimately found they could prove set of facts to create a genuine issue of fact for trial so summary judgment was not entered so a spontaneous but again not only could many credit not prove any of the elements as the court asked it didn't identify any single error in reply it comes to argue that error and violation are synonymous but there's no legal support for this are human and congress used both terms when providing for the defense and it did not use them interchange reading it this way ignores common sense and also renders the word errors superfluous and again without any error many credit can't show it acted on intentionally it can't show the nonexistent error was bona fide it can't show  maintained procedures adapted to avoid the nonexistent error and like here were mislead people was not presented an opportunity to even conduct discovery on it when explicitly asked to identify and describe any errors many of credit identified none and stated any violation would have been the result of incorrect information provided by the original creditor that has nothing to do with this defense here in response to best request for admission for it denied it was required to obtain and mail miss lupi a verification before even calling her to collect the debt thus they deny that it was even an error to call her because they are adamant they were not required to see to calling her as a result they waive that offense but even if they didn't they still can't satisfy the burden under the supreme court's holding and germane an act may be intentional even if the actor lacked actual knowledge that her conduct violated the law so a collector must do more than simply assert that it did not intend to violate the act as previously mentioned metacritic denied it was required to obtain and mail her verification before placing the call and thus intended to place the call and the placement the call was intentional it also argue that the violation only occurred because of the three day lag but as the district court pointed out correctly it provided no explanation for this three day lag that's because it has none it was unknown and anticipated as part of many credits known mail process many credit senior vice president of operations admitted under oath that it takes three business days to process the mail and put any cease and desist letters into many credit system so that it took three days here was not an intentional it was intentional and that it called miss loop after receipt but prior to here because many credit refused to disclose any information related to its defense such that we could perform discovery and to its procedures and again they didn't produce any evidence even in response a summary judgment to show that the procedures were reasonable it's for the same reason that they can't prove that it was bona fide rather than contrived because it doesn't concede a violation occurred when asked for the principal facts to support its defense it referred to the same response quote many credit does not concede any violation occurred once discovery a closed it simply manufactured the defense but it had to because again the three day lag is not an error it's not an error that happened causing the lag of this is a built in into part of their clerical mistakes or what you think this that you mean by the term yes your honor i think a clerical error like that and putting numbers incorrectly for example notating the incorrect file with a cease and desist that would be a clerical error or the type of error that happened you know with the procedures being we stamp it we confirm the consumers name we can certainly have the right account and we do it assuming they went through all that it's narrowly tailored to avoid that specific error  here again they didn't point to any error the three day lag is not an error it's it's part of their process and to prove the maintenance of procedures the th circuit has said it's a two step inquiry st whether the collector maintained procedures to avoid errors and to whether they were reasonably adapted to avoid the error but it can show neither because just like it failed to identify the errors it failed to identify procedures on discovery produce documents or identify documents related to these procedures or explain how they were reasonably adapted so it's summary judgment evidence is all inadmissible while that argues now it had no obligation to spell out exactly how it intended to argue this defense this frivolous argument ignores this loopy a specific in iraq or to raise requesting the principal facts supporting its defense this is common in every single case of the federal rules instead many credit presented its defense by ambush after the close of discovery it cannot be allowed to disregard its duties under the federal rules and present it to the defense this way but in any event it can show its procedures were reasonably adapted again it's preserved were not adapted to avoid calls within this three day lag here they would have had priest needed to be show that they have procedures to avoid calling during the three days where they know this lag exist there's no evidence of any procedures designed to avoid that rather and they didn't even argue that  as one of the your honour's asked earlier they argued repeatedly about the one day after the call twenty four hours later but that's irrelevant to their specific procedures if they had procedures that allowed it to happen in one they didn't disclose any of this in discovery and that's why we don't know had they done this had they properly responded to the enter aka tory asking for the principal fax we would have deposed them and we would have asked why why does it take three days are you using a p o box in missouri and then sending it to your compliance department in california because i don't think that's reasonable it should be in the same area why are we creating additional lag that doesn't exist does does the company have one hundred thousand dollars letters it receives every day yet it only has one person doing this process i would posit that that's on reasonable but because many credit you ask but you still don't know is the bottom line is correct your honor we ask for the principal facts supporting the defense and in it did your honor which is why we serve discovery requesting it admit what the error was identify what the error was identify its procedures in place and identify all the the principal facts to its defense so that we could perform discovery on it not they denied committing an error and they did not produce any documents related to any procedures and they simply referred when asked to identify the error they said quote many credit does not concede any violation of the f t c occurred and then in a separate iraq atory were asked for the principal facts to support that offense it simply said see your response to the inner aga tory that says many credit does not concede any violation of the f p a occurred we also asked them to produce and production any policies or procedures related to their defense as well none were produced information that they intended to rely on at least the principal facts should have been provided to plaintiff and response to the iraq atory so that we could have deposed their senior vice president of operations and inquired further into the defense did you see anything like  discovery requests did you say anything about your reply yes your honor both and the principal motion and the reply and in response to defendant's motion for summary judgment as well and each of the briefings we noted how the discovery abuses and the lack of producing discovery and how they could not now rely on information that they didn't disclose during discovery and i'd further argue that the three day three business day lag at least is never reasonable no matter the size of the debt collector or the amount of the mail it receives because holding otherwise would defeat one of the expressed purposes of the act to ensure those debt collectors who refrain from using abusive debt collection practices are not competitively disadvantage so it would instead give a larger debt collectors an advantage over smaller debt collectors that can and should process letters within one business day to simply say you just have too many debts you're collecting well the answer to that is hire more lose your honor i can quickly respond on standing actual damages are not required to establish an enduring in fact and here the injury is the exact injury congress stop to avoid contacting a consumer after she requested a cease and desist of contact couldn't i couldn't respond directly but here a lot of the times what the courts look to is whether congress is trying to protect a concrete harm that can be found in the common law here contacting the consumer after they've requested no such contact and send a dispute prohibiting such contact contacting that consumer is an invasion of privacy and that's what congress ought to avoid here in invading this consumer's privacy of being called at home and harassed at home when specifically asked not to do it that she didn't answer the call and speak to them doesn't change the fact that they left her a voicemail specifically just telling her again that they were calling to collect the debt from her after she specifically told them to stop calling so we would request of the court affirm in the trial court plaintiff argued that there were no policies and procedures we responded with information about our policies and procedures the reply had once been defendant failed to identify and produce any applicable policies and procedures it was simply