when i started reading the district court decision in this case one of the first paragraphs was as follows each of the name plaintiffs were individuals whose homes were foreclosed in cases where it appears beyond dispute that mortgage assignments affidavits and transfers were fabricated that's the judge's finding as he started the decision he went and i was optimistic as i turned the page however that judge pastor went on in this case to dismiss our claims not just once but three times in his in his decision including one the last one relating to the ohio consumer sales practices act where it seems pretty clear to me that once the federal questions were decided by the judge he lacked to dismiss the state law that once he has jurisdiction or may exercise supplementary he may accept that interesting we even his own order of dismissal of the claims in his order by the time he got to those claims he had there was no longer any pending federal jurisdiction or any any related federal jurisdiction it agree with your honor it's an interesting question but it really doesn't go to the heart because i believe substantively three decisions all three issues that the judge raised  whether or not plaintiffs in the context of a fair debt collection practices act claim or ohio consumer sales practices act claim have the right to challenge assignments under the whether or not our plaintiffs claims  servicers actually prohibited proceeding on those on these claims and in a lot of those dissolute all three of those decisions in some way are related to i think judge lester's misinterpretation of how the of how a how this circuit looks at the issue of assignments of mortgages in endorsements of notes in fraudulent conduct in the in the in the process of mortgage  federal court case that was brought to enjoin in a foreclosure as opposed to a situation where the defendants like the defendant in this case o p s in the offer and that they hired in concert in conspired with to fabricate documents were were taking the initiative to present those documents to the court themselves the clients were to our clients were doing nothing at the time that they were sued based on the fabricated the documents the judge poster did find were fabricated and they were in and they were inhibited in prohibited not just them but the class of individuals that we sought to represent as well from defending properly those claims because of the fabrications and the false statements that were made so the assignment in the issue in this case is much less like the issue of whether a defendant homeowner can challenge the right of a  in the ohio context of a plaintiff lender based on the assignments because there's some pretty good case law i don't agree with that necessarily but there's a lot of case law that says that you can't challenge the assignment and that in this context but the issue here is really only whether those statements are false assuming we can get through the other barriers the judge poster established for us which are which are are the are the defendants in this case debt collectors and we contend that they are and whether or not sales practices act somehow exams default loan servicers like lender processing services do all of your claims depend all to monthly on the validity of the assignments of the right to come against your your plans if you're close against them whatever it is they're doing is that true or is it or something else your claims depend on whether or not in the in an effort to collect a debt a false  that's correct however in what sense does it make to have a system where where you can't unless there's a chance of double recovery what system what sense does it make to interpret the law to allow those kinds of challenges when they owe the money because conley is not going to have to pay twice hungers when they enacted the fair debt collection practices act and the ohio legislature when they enacted the consumer sales practices act said it was it was a pr p a and potentially under the c s p a and there are and there's attorney's fees necessary to defend those false claims in court which are which are recoverable there is embarrassment loss of credit there are certainly there are damages that flow from allegations plausible allegations that led the processing services was in the business of fabricating these documents and engaging with the defendant law firms to perpetuate this fraud on homeowners in ohio and actually throughout the and all of that and the only the only fraud it is is whether that interest has been properly assigned which i guess it was assigned in resign and reassigned your honor if i'm just trying to get at the end there i mean if i'm trouble grasping it seems like you know you can you can say something's a fraud but you know misspelling the date of the week is not a fraud it just doesn't have any any any effect on anybody but if you say well the statute says you get damages and attorneys fees for four misspelling the address or inverting the numbers on the address or something like that when it makes no difference to anybody that would be surprising to me that that's the way the law is but that's basically what you're saying no no no i'm not saying that a mistake mistake is a defeat all right a mistake or some other some other you know we've we've got a person under one corporate form suing you technically it should be the other person's doing you if you money and it will pay it off and i won't have to pay it off any other way but that doesn't first of all it doesn't necessarily mean these loans as as as is our complaint very in a very great detail alleges these loans were sold multiple times it is unclear at best who the real party in interest is and there isn't that it is absolutely possible that somebody else may come forward in the future to attempt to enforce the no we did this court should affirm judge posters order dismissal because in each of the underlying foreclosures at the time they were filed before closing plaintiffs were undisputedly holders of the notes that vested them with standing as of the time they filed the complaints because the foreclosing plaintiffs hold the notes there can be as a matter of law no material misrepresentation to to support an f t c p a cli because the alleged misrepresentation is a lack of standing presentation because he has slightly shifted direction and now is saying that the misrepresentation which would support the f t c p a claim is the assignments there's a significant problem with that because these scientists each and every one of them were executed in two thousand and seven two thousand and eight and two thousand and nine two years before there was any default if there is no default there can be no debt collection you've heard me say are ready for closing plants of some of the notes the basis for the claims in this in this litigation that were brought by the appellants is that the foreclosures were improper this is not because the the appellant's were not in default it's not because they cured their debts but rather because of allegations of lack of standing notably they do not assert any claims against the plaintiffs who filed for actions they do not certainly claims against the lenders they do not assert any claims against the loan servicers they do not assert any because the plaintiffs held the notes at the time of the foreclosures they had standing to foreclose that is black letter law under it under ohio law no misrepresentation no material false statement no deceptive act they say i'm trying to get at what the claim is their claim is that there was deception because they were misleading as to whether they legitimately were the right person to bring the foreclosures that right it's immaterial judge because i'm  you understand there are sort of how i understand the argument houses defend his career what i said because they have added at least in their briefing this additional layer of the question of whether or not the pooling and servicing agreement was violated and servicing agreement was violated by an alleged late transfer of the loans into the securitized that's still a challenge to the to the fact of innocence of the transfer and therefore a challenge to the ability of these people to bring so in effect they according to your understanding of their claim is that they misled as to the legitimacy of their ability to bring these foreclosures that is what they are contending and that is candidly and you're saying that that either has no basis or they can't bring that or they're not allowed to raise that kind of a claim that's precisely correct and wish under the both we get one stronger easier these are just one judge is that because the foreclosing plaintiffs held the notes undisputedly at the time the foreclosures were filed they possessed standing to foreclose even if the even if there were so misled even if they were made misleading statements about their ability to get hold of those notes well they had to say that that's the real issue i'm saying that's why i said yes if there is some or in a right of the notes was was they say they made misleading statements about their right to their notes you'd say still there's no claim here that would be correct because the on the other side of the coin the appellant select standing to contest compliance with the pulley and servicing agreement and they lack standing those cases which say they last standing  those under the f t c p a or are they under sort of defense to foreclosure kinds they reckon they're actually what i'm asking they're actually both because the question is really whether the assignments themselves  even material and our position does that's because that's essential to their f t c p a claim there f t c ph claim fails under these documents which say that they can't challenge is the way that they got the legality of their having the that's exactly exactly i began which which cases rely on that kind of standing in the context of an f t c case i don't believe i can and off the top of my head there in your briefs there is some mention in the briefs len back out of the fourth for the fourth circuit holds that robo signed documents are not materially misleading aware of unreported decisions in which i represented l p s and that that conclusion was reached but i can if we don't buy that then what's your next what's the next certainly most clearly disp in the statement that they are complaining of is foreclosing plaintiff lacked standing to foreclose and that is simply not the case it is not even a misrepresentation it's certainly not materially false or misleading that is simply again because the the foreclosing plaintiffs possessed the notes in the two endorsed they held the notes and on that basis alone under ohio law they possess standing the second reason is that the assignments which the opponents complained of were simply not part of that collection activities they were executed and recorded as i said two thousand and seven two thousand and eight two thousand and nine th defaults here occurred in two thousand and eleven and twenty twelve and therefore they cannot be part of the debt collection activity there are also a number of decisions which held that the mere transfer of security interest violation of the ohio consumer sales practices act and that is simply not the case he still must satisfy the requirements of such a claim he still must show that there is a supplier and a consumer transaction and based upon the enderson decision anderson versus barclay that does not apply here they cannot establish that claim at all that is because in the interest of decision it was held by the the ohio supreme court that  loan servicing as opposed to rigid nation or offering of a loan to a consumer is not a consumer transaction it is a transaction between them in effect that the lender and the loan service recent decision which we found twenty fourteen can generate twenty eight out of the northern district of ohio called rif nack which specifically held that the andersen decision applies to law firms and vendors exempt under the o c s pay and in addition when a portion of the tranche when the underlying transaction is exempt all other parties who acted in connection with that transaction of the ohio consumer sales practices act because again the foreclosing plaintiffs each and every one of them were holders of the note so the the assignments whether or not there was any defect in  m is completely irrelevant and i would point out to the court just to be clear that the assignments continue gaps the chains of assignments in this case they go for we understand that you may know that they say there is some possibility of double recovery there is not a judge our our our way to be sure of that judge this court in the seminal case of livonia properties discussed standing in the context of wood versus livonia properties it is part of it it is a michigan case but candidly judge of only of properties is the seminal case nationwide with respect to the issue of standing it is the one case that is consistently cited judge excuse me lavonia properties has this to say about the risk of double recovery and you can look at the your on it can look at the decision if the foreclosing plaintiff the older of the note there is no risk of double recovery do my best to do this in five minutes your honour's that's a lot of time let's let's start with the fact that the that is not our allegation is that they did they were not holders of those so the allegation which is what you're here to address in t evidence because we haven't gotten to the evidence part of our allegation which is what the score is is is assigned to take a look at is is that they that they did and attaching a hold of the notes is that mean physically th physical in ohio you can be a holder of a note in two ways you can be endorsed specially two you check into a table to judge cole or and sign on the back to judge hood or it could be endorsed in blank by judge but by  assignments those assignments without notaries who were actually notary signing them there were those there's assignments of allegations in the complaint that the documents were signed in one room and someplace else without the notary witnessing the signatures that the assignments from the parties who had not previously received an assignment the that there was no before that there was false representations about clippard authority there was then attaching that assignment just because it happened to be executed three two or three years before to a lawsuit served on the wishes or the or the quarks or the thousands of other ohio homeowners who have the right even if they don't pay their mortgage or let it's alleged that they don't pay their mortgage to due process of  decided in the schwartz well decision that a lender must have there must be an actual controversy between two parties for the court to exercise jurisdiction under ohio's constitution that there must just controversy in this case are allegation is that because of the false statements made in the complaints that they pretended that there was a discipline contra controversy for these three cases and for thousands of others but there really wasn't these three folks who happened to get a lawyer and ended up in a much better situation than they would have but but the but for the thousands that didn't this is a serious taking of rights and m p s is not alone service or they are they advertise on their website they are the nation's premier default loan company they are hired once a loan goes into default they are clearly under the definition of e f t c p a and their effect in commerce certainly when they start filing true homeowners were risk in fact their right to end it in there's more at stake for these homeowners than just the fact that they weren't that they didn't have a chance to defend these technical highly technical legal issues in court they were federal programs that were evolving over the last three years to allow assistance to homeowners to say the dream program in ohio offers twenty five thousand dollars to help homeowners catch up their loans the ham program went through multiple evolutions during the time the l p s in their law firm coconspirators were systematically engaging in this fraud at the end of the day if a if any of my clients went to the bank and tried to pass off papers bad as this to the bank they would end up in jail and all we're asking is that is that this court hold l p s its subsidiaries in the law firms that they conspired with to make civil standard of liability for making response statements to clerks in the state of ohio ok thank you and animists to go burke certainly appreciate your arguments today the case will be submitted