consolidated appeal this is an appeal from an order granting a motion to dismiss and i think it's important to emphasize procedurally where we are this is not a summary judgment this is not a trial it's a motion to dismiss was it test of the pleaded in our public brief we identify a number of errors made by the district court there are three of them which the respondents do not dispute as we noted page sixteen of are not addressed by this number three we are they don't address the fact that the district court improperly added unfair and unconscionable to a sixty nine to f one claim which is the subsection claim that appears on page forty and forty one of our briefs and as noted in page twenty one of our reply not addressed by that but this is i don't know of all appeal both parties agree that the standard so it's not simply a question of what the district or got wrong it got things wrong and i note that this court in its independent review is not going to make the mistakes that the district  the smith complaint appears starting at page one and the washington complaint appears starting at page thirty four dollars there are there's one additional paragraph which changes the numbering i'm going to refer to the smith for the purposes of this appeal there isn't any difference between what's played in the two complex there are two separate f d c p a claims that are alleged in those complaints either one of them being having enough fac one is the allegation under sixty nine to ask one that the respondent violated f one because they failed to comply with a court order said enforce the substantive the merits of a particular claim it's not a question of what's midst of all it's actually a separate rule that was adopted by the ramsey county saying you must have this or you cannot a judgment against  would be collective ball under lupton pen would be would be different in st paul than it would be in minneapolis at the time of this complaint yes the ramsey county court default but to any case seeking judge and asked lead in the complaint the respondents in this case did not possess that evidence and they did not present that evidence the court when they sought judge it what if they had presented that they brought that with them and they presented it and then the court said just as a as a ruling that's insufficient another as they bring it is so the two steps that you're saying didn't happen here didn't happen but for some reason they just weren't sufficient for purposes of proving the acquisition or transfer of the data or whatever the substance of the matter w different that would be the hemming sin hill situation where simply because they lost it would make it if the c p a claim what's different about this case as you pointed out is and we specifically plead it they didn't possess it and they didn't present it says only because we want the conciliation court do we have a claim that's not true in fact i would argue it doesn't matter what the conciliation court ruled the question is did they possess it and did they present that issue is decided in the federal district court case not at the conciliation turns out we actually prevail and the conciliation court actually held they failed to meet the standard that's not the basis for our claim but that's a bump on the scale of plausibility because you have a court that said they don't have the evidence they're required to have and they admitted at the hearing they didn't have any other evidence the other round hole which you keep trying to push are square complaint through is this theory of a per se violation that every action that affects a collector were trying to turn into an empty suit be a violation that's not argument either this is not the three courtesy copies versus two courtesy copies argument this is a specific rule that says you may not seek a judgment against a consumer unless you possess it and you present it and the reason why it's a separate if you c p a violation in addition to be a violation of the law is because it could not have sought to recover any money because they did not possess or present the evidence they then argue to other arguments one is that it doesn't apply to argument it's not law it's just procedural but we know from jones resigned and ironically from kline verses s e j the same response from the discord in minnesota they have the force of law as a court order and therefore have the same effect in being a viable f one slate that i'm not to reverse the district court now the other argument the other basis of the claim has to do with  and what the language of their complaint in the conciliation court said was that the defendant the plant accounts here oh x amount of money plus x amount of service rules i get it the local will of the ramsey county court but on this one there's a minnesota rule that says you know why you have any claim for disbursement if they're not claimed at the very outset right in that if it were all five of five says go ahead that is not what the hearing if you have actually incurred some dispersants that's the correct procedure and the rule that allows the court to add disbursements to the judgment would allow you to come to the hearing not having made a false statement but actually incurred some disbursements or conversed late if the amount is over two thousand five hundred dollars you know your going to have to serve ok counsel if they had put if they'd put in a you're not gonna like this but if they put in a prayer for relief disburse basis required by the rules for them to plead it's not in the statement finally they argue materiality under coined the middle and this court's decision it's satisfied because we're read about cause i was reading you there holding on cost i think i'm reading a quotation in the case and that sounds to me more a little more like disbursements i know they're not the same but sounds a little more so tell me why that sentence from stretton or what do you do with that sentence that's a question that statement isn't part of the complaint that's not what was the basis of the false statement alleged in the case the false statement alleged in that case was that they owed a certain amount of in terms of the assignment the ramsey county standing order demand that a creditor plaintiff bring evidence to trusting the chain of title from the original creditor to the death purchaser the complaint alleges that the evidence was insufficient he call a redacted computer printout this was evidence that we continue to stand behind there for trying to comply with the ramsey county standing order judge kelly was correct you are correct when you mention that this is an evidentiary decision and this case our evidence was presented the conciliation court referee reviewed the evidence and found it inadmissible or insufficient and about as if it were to like evidence you have the words there i don't i'm sorry but is it word like evidence or is cording and they didn't have what basic the basic requirements for even bringing the case and twelve the six were alleging that they didn't weren't permitted under last to bring this that all the really if they don't summary cites decline versus our that's a different fact but closer to what you're talking about in kline the attorney general agreement which was the underlying procedural issues as opposed to the standing order requiring that a lawsuit information sheet be attached to any summons and complaint in that case stewart did not include the information she whatsoever there was a complete lack of inclusion in this case we did present evidence it's simply that the conciliation court define it as not fees there is no set definition under minnesota law under the statute which is allowed for the question of disbursement and district court it simply says i believe cough incurred during the litigation appear they may be liable for any damages plus expenses and other items provided by statute requiring us to plead disbursements should any be incurred we don't know at the time an action is filed if there will be any disbursement we can't know this is quite common for example in ramsey county to show up at the date of the hearing and the toll that there was a service issue service normally being done by the court st class mail and that we now have to follow up with personal s that haiti has a whereas statement in its prayer for relief and that it is a aspirational request used to strengthen language a good faith requires aimed at the court not to the defendant if the court looks at our statement of claims and some  later on with the date and time of the hearing the defendant is referred to directly by you as opposed to the beginning which is the d start of the case the nation of our argument the defendants going out with a lot of money plus because stratton is actually perfect for us for this matter because in the stratton face where they talked about an aspirational request the th circuit differentiated between that case where a specific percentage of interest was requested where the original creditor had waived interest versus a hypothetical case where with would not have been and that the c b i the c p a violation where a request was made for whatever interest the court chooses to award in this case we're not claiming any specific disbursement that are on award of all the original predators never wave this person or simply including it for notice requirement i would add a council in that in the stre case is the sentence about call it a simple request for cos i read it to the your opponent is that dicta i don't believe so i think i think because it's it's strong examples of what would be an aspirational request and died and for courts they did not have any basis to claim dispersed you just heard it it's bennett didn't do that by them before they didn't know if it was ever going to happen or not they didn't have a basement at that point know dispersement owe them on december th of two thousand and eighteen when the false statement was made they didn't owe them in february of two thousand and nineteen when the hearings happened and they could get that over and over again that is not immaterial cause and the amount is not a prayer for relief it's theirs false and misleading statement that the defendant's appellants o a certain amount of money and they do so is this is this  court or a stake or sanctioned or generated form or is this or is this form that we're looking at own lease to conciliation court actions are in in rancy county the form looks like this but there's a blank where it says plain to statement of class right now i'm looking at appendix seventeen which is one of them the other one is that appendix i'm sure i could find it if i look for right i'm looking at i've got both of them that part is blank and that's the part they believe that the language that it's respondent chose to put in there with their so what you say there is no there is no  blank for the prayer for relief there isn't a separate spot on the form for you to put a prayer for release so if you want it to be if you wanted to include a prayer for relief it would have to go in that somewhere in that blank in