where they didn't have to file cases at the daily center they could have filed cases at the satellite courthouses in cook county as well but chose not to do so it's also worth noting that  during the time that the swayze case was pending before this court certainly the debt collectors were aware that there was a kind of a dark cloud over the new some ruling that perhaps the complaint in the wrong courthouse this was a deliberate choice that this is the courthouse most convenient for in this case by hasler but any other debt collector also in cook county certainly the court houses that are closest to the consumer would be more convenient for those consumers we're talking about high volume small claims that collection cases where going to your defendants are poor employ elderly many many don't have cars getting to to judicial rulings except to say that if a debt collector has relied on an advisory opinion which is subsequently overruled by a court that in that instance the safe harbor still applies however in the situation there was no no political c f b or f t c advisory opinion upon which this the the defendant was relying it was solely based on their interpretation of newsome and its what it permitted finally moving on to the question of retroactivity i believe  the court was relatively clear in this way is opinion that the this that that ruling did apply retroactively also i believe that the results encouraged by the defendants in this case  only retroactive as to the immediate litigants and not to any other similarly situated parties is just favored and disallowed in our system also you know there have been six other cases that have been decided by the district court at least six since the district court ruled in this case those all in all of those cases the district court has sided with  consumer and ruled against the same affirmative defense of the search asserted by black hassam miller in this case we believe that the weight of the district split is clearly on the side of the consumer here and we would urge the court to reverse the district court in this case and follow the line of cases established by the other judges and as of one final note i believe in their response  debt collectors beyond marion county and it is throughout the circuit if not the country regarding read through activity how quarterback rich your activity reach well i would say it reaches far back as the statute of limitations on a ruling so any cases that would have been filed have been filed i don't think at this point that really resurrects any matters from before i also think you know the we're talking about cases that generally are may please the court good morning your honour's my name is david hart so i represent the only black has miller your honor is this case is based on a legal fiction a fiction that the law was something other than what it was at the time that us the original suez panel opinion had just issued two months earlier in october of two thousand and thirteen so there is no dark cloud of any kind soon as it knew some had just been reaffirmed again by the original panel the fact is newsome was the law black followed the law and that's why blacks entitle to the bonafide air defense let didn't make an error of law the only error we made was not having the foresight or being able to foresee that eighteen years later this court would overrule noosa and impose a different interpretation now that of course is this court's profit and black has adjusted on a going forward basis in terms of where these new where these cases now have to be filed and it's created just as an aside this created quite an administrative issue for the nightmare night here i don't think would understate it your honor there have  the i can tell you that the transfer process is still ongoing that this has this the effect of this has greatly disrupted the collection the chief judge's collection court over there and all these cases that have to be and not be transferred to these remote courthouses that don't have the resources or the infrastructure to handle them there are thousands of cases where transporters have been entered and the file hasn't even made it out to skokie or bridge you or wherever but that's what they have to deal with over there sir absolutely not in an indication that you're already by oh yes or in the case of my client the day after the suez bought decision entered my client changed its procedures to make sure now that if the debtor lived in one of these subdistricts that the lawsuit was filed in that subdistrict the second prong of that was we had to take all of these cases that had been filed at the daily center where the debtor lived in skokie or markham or bridgeview and those cases had to be transferred by order of the cook county circuit court out to those outlying districts and that has what has created as judged by our suggested a nightmare for the court and that process is still ongoing in this case this case was dismissed within a week of the suez decision being entered who that was no longer being prosecuted right because the option the option then at that point was you either got to transfer that case or you can voluntarily dismiss it in this case it was dismissed but in every other single instance what black hasler is doing is transferring those cases and they are proceeding if at district which is the daily center you know about but you are but you are correct in that in this or in the in that that the cook county court has concentrated its resources at the daily center that's where the interpreters are that's where the infrastructure are that's where the consumer helpdesk is and now they're faced with do we have the resources to recreate that infrastructure and that help out in these remarks going to court houses and like every other county in the country they have their financial issues and it's created a real problem for them but going back to this case this case is not at all like your man not at all where the court held that the debt collector could not avail itself that the defendant deck collector lawyer in that case could not claim bona fide here where he was relying upon his own interpretation of the wall the underlying legal issue and your man was far from being well settled to the contrary it was the subject of much dispute the supreme court was rightly concerned about allowing somebody to use bona fide air on a legal issue where they were relying upon their own interpretation of the law or on the advice of private counsel not so the law here was clear knew some said and i quote in illinois circuit courts constitute judicial districts under the plain meaning of the f t c p a there was no interrupting to be done there was no legal judgment to be brought to bear as long as the consumer lived within cook county it was not a violation to file the suit at the daily center and i just want to respond to something mr hector said he said well you didn't have to file it at the day of the center you could have chose to file it out in skokie your but that's really not the question the question is not whether we had the option to do that but whether we violated the f t c p a by filing it at the daily center and clearly we did not that's why newsome has to be lawful conduct into a violation we don't need to rely upon sixty nine to katie but it is preposterous to suggest that this court's decisions are not entitle to the same deference and where the court there equated the defendant's actions in following an agency's form to quote debt collectors who follow the safe harbor language drafted by this court in court k they held that the debt collectors use of that form was not a mistake of lost because quote any misinterpretation of misinterpretation of the law was done by the agency not the debt collector just so here s over old houses and hell that new some misinterpreted the law but blacks reliance on new some justice in court which was both reasonable and justified i want to take a second about retroactivity know if i don't like reading this court's opinions back to what i think it's important this quote is important in suez when the court talked about retroactivity it said prospective or were over ruling on reliance grounds it's impermissible unless the law has been so well stopped before the old ruling that it had been unquestionably prudent for the community to rely upon the previous legal understanding we submit to you that knew some represented exactly that for lawyers filing debt collection cases in cook county marion county it's a different story even so even so as recognized that that new sim might not provide or could not provide the same basis for just a fall reliance by debt collectors in marion county the suicide court itself to that very distinction that we're making here likewise for the marion county debt collector sou s said that quote a prior decision of one intermediate appellate court does not create th degree of certainty concerning an issue of federal law that would justify perspective only application but for lawyers filing collection cases in cook county knew some created exactly precisely that degree of certainty for those lawyers this wasn't just one intermediate appellate court this was the court the only court in new some the only decision that mattered that did this court could not have intended to open up a window of liability for these lawyers and leave them out there like sitting ducks plaintiff's counsel here has filed over one hundred of these cases twenty eight against my client alone all based all alleged sou s violations in collection cases that were filed in every case filed and in most cases closed well before suez issue they need to be able to rely upon what the sport says it cannot be the case that we can only feel confident in the law in the one percent of the one percent of the one percent of the cases that get decided by the supreme court the fact is that this court usually has the last word and we have to be able to depend on what it says in that we will not be penalized if the court later changes its mind so let me wrap this off by saying that no matter how you look at it bonafide here safe harbor retroactivity it all comes down to this was it reasonable and justifiable to have relied and then they both have limited relevance i think to the overall point which is that the supreme court's ruling in germany i believe does foreclose their ability to claim the safe harbor in a search of harvard or the a bonafide air defen e primarily because there was a legal choice here law firm chose to act in a certain way read the law and interpreted it and acted based on that interpretation i don't see how it's not a legal judgment  as to court kora believe first of all it involves someone following an agency's ruling and directive to put that specific debt collector in a very strange catch twenty two which is not the case here  the same part of provision is quite clear that it's specific to advisory opinions of the beer or even in this situation would your p c immediately dismiss it another year in which to file the case or through the statue of limitations period whichever one was longer so the benefit would be on a certain level to prevent that suit from being refile live you're saying that  longer generally these cases are filed pretty close to the end of the statue of limitations period so i would imagine that at this point in time it can no longer be refile would that make it moot i don't believe so i think there was a there's a distinct risk during that one year period and