and in part upon the number of class members that's correct your honor but in this that's correct in most situations and it's partially correct in this case but you don't get to that calculation until you determine what damages are actually available got this court found that the allegation was that each person who have foam was damaged a couple one hundred dollars so it's easy enough to take a couple one hundred dollars which the court took two hundred dollars and the multiplied out by the number of people lend their cars weren't sold that we was a sell for the same amount of money so if people have different amount of damages does that mean that the district court in order to determine jurisdiction on the council has got to go through  much it is and to me to complicate a task substantially well and i understand your concern and that's not what we're asking here for today we don't believe that it is a requirement that  class wide analysis on the purpose of the average deficiency amount class wide wide couldn't they have done the exact same thing on the other side the damages are individual they have the records they could have do significant sample even the one hundred dollars they could have gotten as of the average is this but what they did what they said five thousand dollars for campbell's the five thousand dollars for everyone on the other side when they're talking about the other side of the damages which is the deficiency amount they  used campbell deficiency amount because that was small that's three thousand five hundred they don't want that number multiply out by the class does does the maryland statute provide for the recovery of statutory damages well that that's the issue before the court room and we believe that it does where does it say that yeah well if the debtor pays more than distinction that we're making is that if you could stay with my question that we have a number on the answer you're suggesting your question that the you know my question was whatever my question was and i'll go back and restated if you like  where does it say that exactly in the language of the statute and you can look on rebuttal if you want the purpose of the statute is simply to provided order to prevent the debtor from having to pay more than the amount of the for instance no your honor but we believe the purpose of the statute is to not allow a critic grant or profit on a loan in which a violation is occurred and that is the basis of the in that i thought it just prevented the creditor from collecting from the de or beyond the principal amount of the l stated that way i'm sorry right yes has that happened here yes your honor it is prevented it has collected from other debt or more than the principal not alone yes your honor because the sale of and that's where we get to the issue of whether or not the sale price of the motor vehicle is considered a payment from the debtor and so for that i directed the poor poor to case one of the reasons that and that case under th what you say there's a maryland case that says the ripple the amount recovered on repossession under claque amount to a payment you're out of the the implication from from the case is they held it clarified rather than results on the sales that ok with respect to the payment the issue was whether or not the creditor who collect contractual interest after the inference your particular ip it seems to me is an open question if you're making that intention like how you are if you're suggesting that eighteen thousand is a payment on your honor i see my time is up i'd like to respond to th central the central argument against the center a bit what yeah and it was also not the focus of the question did not focus on the payment from the debtor it focused on the creditors and damages are available to a consumer in affirmative action only when they're being sued can they make that request and so this board position previously have been that there is no way for a consumer to get a credit grantor off their back until the credit grant or attention we continuously violated the statute and then collected more than the principal amount of the loan so really thank you thank you grant or who knowingly violates any provision of the shall right forfeit right so the language is as clear that those are opposing standard here and then similarly under and one for public sales this was a private sale so the court had asked mr sidel a number of questions about the application of the sale proceeds to the loan and whether that should be considered to be a payment by the b er and i think looking at the structure of the statute shows that in the case of a private sale that is not correct the private sale of this is on notice and mr as i don't claim on behalf of this client so that is the focus of the private sale statute and then it provides that if the borrower considers the private sale to have been accomplished in a commercially one hundred simple manner right the b can take that up with a commission or financial regulation or similarly the borrower can see the remedy under section twelve dollars to eighteen dollars prohibiting for their collections but those are the two remedies under the private sale hero well i mean i can only speculate as to what the legislature was thinking but the way i see the statute is that the court and that the legislature in this case of a private  the commission or financial regulation based on the notice where it's in the public sale context it discusses the application of the sale proceeds to the principal and that if that were the notice requirements or not follow the credit not titled any deficiency judgment so the way i understand that if i can speculate about the legislature's thinking is that the cool of the legislature there was focus on the mechanics of the sale process and making sure that those were accomplished in a way that will provided by or with a remedy rather than focusing on the notice issue under a private sale  judgment right or a prohibition on obtaining a deficiency at all if a relief is sought from the commissioner of financial regulation so the commissioner could could prohibit it without getting to the judgment issue but if if they don't go the commission of then it's the prohibitions it is obtaining the judgment that is correct your honor and with respect to the information the requirements that certain information be provided a violation of that could offer would also be addressable in some manner by the commissioner of insurance requiring that a standardized be for a standard ice for with the with standard is clearly erroneous with respect to judge grins analysis of the facts underline his conclusion that katha jurisdictional requirements are met the court tailored its analysis very closely to this court's decision and stop vs credit and lies in the the estimates of the amounts and controversy which the court in that case  specifically held that over inclusive evidence within reason is permissible and in fact was not only but unless a bullet statutorily authorized the the five million dollars describes the value of the matter in controversy and so you don't necessarily you made focus on the plaintiffs represent the parties crime but the real assessment is what is the value of a matter in controversy and in this and that is correct your honor and as judge wilkinson earlier eluded to the affidavit was a specific it as it could be without doing an individual review of each borrowers lomu file because what mr as i know is alleging in the complaint is that ms campbell is known as lacked a specific disclosure the name and address of the buyer so the only way you could determine how many people there were who fell into that category if there were any other than ms campbell is i looking at a notice any file and as the court suggested earlier the that would make the more detail grasp of all the different provisions statute than perhaps we do and i like to take advantage of that by just asking you to look at it from zero a little broader perspective  the notice because that wasn't before it the current rule on the is the issue of whether there's a provision for damages under the statu district or found there were no damages and no harm to the borrower on the basis that the remedy is a moron flexions she did not hey anything after the notice was received nor he should pay anything above principle so those were the two bases for the district court conclusion that there was no essentially no harm no foul here  if there are any other people who fell into that category but even if that were there are remedies and a statute as we addressed earlier to the extent that the borrower believes that the absence of that information made  sale commercially unreasonable that can be addressed to the commission or financial regulation and to the extent that any such borrowers have paid more than the principal a out it's the amount intentionally at issue in the case so you have to assume without any other evidence that the claim applies to all of the borrowers in the same position which was  artifact of the james versus santander case that would sidle than counsel's reply addresses that very issue and says that the defendant cannot be required to admit liability to confer federal jurisdiction which is essentially the deficiency is and she lives both yes and she alleges of course under the statute that t l c c should not be permitted to collect any of her deficiency so that amount as is also an issue in addition to the analysis would have to be undertaken it would not be feasible and the time for removal my role is here from your posing counsel in its thinking on and so as a consequence that wasn't right and i suppose but that's still at issue because if you were to when they couldn't collect a deficiency judgment and so it's the value of the matter and controversy i amount in the amended complaint you had it whatever five thousand one hundred dollars something in the original complaint but you summarized it basically saying all the his interest and so forth and i gather that's the same five thousand roughly it's the value of the matter in controversy corrector and toyota would be prohibited if they lost while they would not be a damage amount they would be prohibited from collecting the deficiency matter in controversy is as to be five million dollars and the value of the matter in controversy if you only had one dollar in damage and the class your purporting to represent each had one hundred thousand dollars damage you're not going to whether they came forward with enough evidence when you came forward zero and so they came forward with the number of loans they came for with the playout they laid out all the payments in this particular loan this one was  went into fall two years into a six year loan so hot assuming that every one of the loans goes into default three years every one of the ball three years out of a six year low i mean you can make all kinds of assumptions but you're trying to assess the value of the matter in controversy and not the damages corrector on it and and that goes to the nd point on this very issue is that what we're saying here is that the people because there's no evidence on the record of what that is with respect to the issue of payment versus collection i just wanted to bring back to the statutory language of twelve  instead of being repossessed refinanced for a loan with a new bank that pain is not coming from her it's coming from another person but she borrowed that money to make that payment that is her pain is fully compensated on the loan potentially have violated it numerous times just because the payment didn't come directly out of the populace thank you for your time trying to come down