and the need to protect washington residents from predatory lending if the rulings of the district court are not reversed the ass of the defendants will continue to plex you serious interest from washington homeowners on a legal loan contracts that were entered into and that are secured by real property in the state without ever having to answer in this forum to hold the assamese accountable the bar which would have to bring dozens if not hundreds of cases around the country to essentially decide t thousands of dollars that been taken from them none of these results is condoned by the supreme court the law of this circuit or washington law and therefore the district court should be reversed turning to personal jurisdiction nearly fifty years ago in the case of mcgee versus international life insurance company the supreme court held that for purposes of due process and the exercise of personal jurisdiction it is proper to hold a nonresident defend their personally physical contact does not prevent personal restriction over defendant here these cases are precisely like me and burger king here arise out of contracts it has substantial connections with the former state of washington this context include the fact that the contracts were originated in washington the fact that the contractor with washington residence the fact that the contracts are secured by deeds of trust in covering washington property the fact that the contracts are governed by washington law the fact that pursuant to the contract washington residents are forced to pay monthly payments and those payments are drawn in washington banks in me the plaintiff was the resident of the forum the everything that happened in this case happened in washington the fact that the loans were eventually signed out really doesn't remove the assamese from this forum in fact it brings them to here because they purposefully yvel themselves  going to be honest in your honor in a factual section under table finding i believe that we answered that there's really genuine issues on that date that the plaintiffs here really don't know that they were told basically that the originators were going to go ahead and service their loans they were told that of that that gets to my second point your honor and really the roadmap for how that occurred was provided by this court in the markets nearly thirty years ago and really there are three steps to take when faced with an issue when you have a name plaintiff attempting to start times on behalf of a class against some defendants within the named plan of the patent contact the first step is to just determine whether the name meets the threshold requirements standing not with be there are situations in which the conspiracy is the link that combines all the defendants but the point here is it's not that the defendants are have to be combined it's that the defendants all have a relationship to the class members through deal with different lenders maybe in immediately and years and knows when to deal with individual trust offenders that are different so you've got not one spoke of held or hold that american mortgage professionals originated and that's the lengths that you have it's the strict liability standard that hope provides that gives you that link and the point here really is judicial efficiency you could bring a separate case for each one of these assamese but what would you be deciding he would be deciding whether m p originated you sure response you would be having the same case brought over and over and over to reach the same issues really that that's  what we have here is the ability in this forum where the loans were originated to address those issues which are on the blue circle if m p is liable so is german american  empty these are the same cases really as wives and more more and wise to address things a little bit differently more look at rule twenty weist really look at rule twenty three in a sense but the point here is factual issues as the class members whose loans are held in yellow close eye on the lenders and make sure that they're not taking unfair advantage of the borrowers the question presented to the court today legally is really when does a party make a loan the washington legislature and the department of financial institutions have both  question with the following making a loan means closing a loan in a person's name the loans here were all closed either in the name of american mortgage professionals or the name of union financial corps because these lenders closed the loans in their own names they must have been licensed in order to provide interest rates above zero percent they want licensed there for the long history chariots of the washington laws these thirty one point zero four point zero one five the actual definition is making a loan means closing a loan or a person's name which really means signing the documents in your own name and that's exactly what happened here the three test that you're speaking of i would respectfully disagree is not found in washington not something that the district court probably gathered from two cases that preceded the consumer loan action nevertheless if you want to look at those three tasks and mccaw did not deal with that situation in terms of the contract showed on its face that the payments were going to a third party lender in must call the borrower is told up front that the third party lender was really even though the loan was being closed in the name of nevertheless even to table funding were an exception to the statute i think if you look at the three tests that test that you're talking about the preexisting relationship is really meaningless and i submitted it changed recently called merino versus some that mortgage corporation where the fifth circuit financial no other name ever came up and all the documents to the name but some of the money came but i respectfully disagree all the checks just that were just first the plaintiffs were dispersed from bank accounts for american mortgage professionals union financial and some kids who paid off our higher credit card debts and we had to pass adoption so there weren't any complaints the way these cases arose was someone from a south carolina law firm came to washington search records found out that these focus on the four trust that held loans and i handed up some diagrams early this morning so hopefully those will be helping those for those for trust purchased to loans they were formed at the point in time that the loans were written they purchased belongs at a large loan pool outside of the state of washington they have never done anything in the state of washington the now these first class trusts are number standing except the originators and these poor trust that not go out of on personal jurisdiction or on stand but they did go out on personal your section and what the court found the trial court there was they did absolutely nothing in washington the only thing that was in washington was a leaning on a loan but the trust did not do anything about getting the loan payments there was in the fund the contractor in most cases all the the trust are set up to very complicated and they're set up to make this a longing financing work but focusing on the personal jurisdiction that in order to have personal jurisdiction and you have to have some contact with washington but there has to be some unlawful act or some act that was inappropriate to these trust that they did nothing inappropriate and washington they weren't in existence they had nothing to do about not getting those licenses the only thing they ever did was a venture they had hired an independent contractor to do the work there was never any more has to be something inappropriate to my contract with washington why is insufficient to do something appropriate such as paying money for a loan which is secured by a deed of trust in washington why is your position it can't be any personal to loan industry in washington and if you get loans in seventeen or eighteen percent we will buy them back east there will be a source of funds which will take you out of those deals and  vertical contracts but there are no horizontal contracts in fact there's competition between a lot of these and these to get the loans anderson there's nothing that's horizontal going on and what the specifically talked about that is that what you can't just overwrite article three jurisdictions because just to let somebody sue an industry because you have the manageability problems of large class actions and the situation we got here there into vidual loans they got different rates they were different people were talking to these sorts of borrowers and there were many different steps that went through the chain and it's a very complicated thing and definition that they were praying to in the statutes was passed in two thousand and one long after these cases were filed and more over the operative section thirty one else for the consumer one act this well we know that it's delivered on the tenth by the fact that the funding confirmations i mean that is what is being confirmed in the funding confirmations it is dispersal to the borrower that is being confirmed at that point and so we have matching funding confirmations and we have a wire transfer that all matching the sacrifice and the bankers if they i mean i'm summary judgment they have the perfect ability to come forward with some of their own records if in fact they had received the back again kind of saying yes we got that and yes the date is september the tenth the ok this is actually more complex because union financial managed to send the funding confirmation through to t and actually if you go two more pages forward i think that there's another document that tend to their first payment is due on the tenth of october about two more pages further on it could be three pages