do you need something i don't know i don't i didn't know it's going to start right now so you're going to start right now so since she was across a letter again she informed the council that it would have confused here yet opposing counsel insisted that she combined the cases and emotion and the motion the court ordered watson to combine the dispositive motions at which time the court did therefore walton requested an emergency hearing to gain clarity on how to proceed however an order was never issued the ninety hearing hearing never took place therefore one proceeded to prepare a combined cross motion for summary judgment response motion and reply motion all in line with unanswered questions from the court this court has long standing opinion on the importance of providing a pro se litigant with adequate notice when a motion for summary judgment is initiated by opposing counsel what referenced in her brief the authority from authority to the magistrate's report and recommendation however this was not the case authority was cited to portions of the report that addressed a general issue of material facts that were in dispute walton also objected to the magistrate's report and recommendation in its entirety and her checked of was not only to survive summary judgment but to trigger the district court judge to comply with trial world seventy two being what beyond the scope of the requirements according to seventy two being the requirements are specific objections require a checking parties only to specify the findings conclusions recommendations are other specific parts of the ma judges report recommendations to which they object in order to invoke i do not believe you they are not required to present the legal factual bases of their  concern with the facts of what they reported or is it with the legal question whether somebody in e o s is position can just rely on the information that the original creditor here eighty and he gave to them because as i read all of this it seemed to me your primary concern was that e o s never went back to eighteen check out the account number and u has taken the position that it didn't have any legal obligation to do that yesterday so that's not really a fact dispute so much as it's what does the law require us to do right means all no they didn't go back deposition of the thirty six illustrate the senator of what went on to argue how the magistrate judge inaccurately summarized at this deposition testimony and how the testimony supports walton's claim that had not established a policy to address disputed accounts although one did argue in her dispositive motion that the deposition testimony was edgy just show admission when she should've argue corporate representatives testimony who testified that walton's account was deleted three days after one filed a federal complaint which was almost five months after she did she created the account with us and this in itself shows well for misconduct this concludes my argument and if you don't have any further questions i reserve my remaining time to repeat heart thank you very much mr ryan claims she raises two theories in the series the first theory is that my client improperly furnished data to the credit bureaus that theory must be brought under sixteen eighty one say because that is the section that governs furnishing data to the credit bureaus but she insists that she's proceeding only under b which is the one where there is a right of action and i guess that if i'm not mistaken i've be interested in your comment about this real essence of this is if the problem is in that initial transmission from eighteen t e o s with this mixed up account number that somebody figured out was transpose transposed maybe it wasn't transposed was certainly a different number your position has to be that there's never any responsibility on the part of the debt collector to sort out that kind of a problem and it's just baked into the system so these these kinds of issues you see it must happen from time to time that there's a mistake in the transmission from the original creditor to the debt collector and you read some cases pretty broadly to say well that's just life is hard you know too bad there's a problem there maybe they don't need to be read quite there broadly maybe when the consumer is calling to the debt collectors attention the fact that it's not her account or that this isn't the right thing maybe that one phone call could you retransmit the data or something would be called for  problem with this case and the facts presented in this case was that this was her e t a into account the numbers were just transposed however the idea of what the problem was about the transposed account number didn't come up until the second p c d v report case the data points that match for the name the address and so security number she was saying this isn't me in our data in our system we're saying it's you and so in the name of what suppose a person had two accounts the account that has an alleged delinquency of two hundred sixty seven dollars and an account that's entirely current you know maybe she's paying for an account for maybe maybe a consumer's paying for an account for their son or something like that it would make a difference to get the right account number even though all the rest of these data points match your honor i would concede that point if the problem was the account number but until you know that the problem is the account number all you have is information saying this isn't me you match it to what you have and it is her the it's undisputed that this is her  difference here her middle account numbers and so what have i know that that's the alleged swap you know and i don't know how with the eight hundred eight as fields of three and they mixed up the field i don't then he idea but i do know that if i got a letter from eighteen saying that i owed money under a particular account and i pulled out my file and i didn't have an account under that number i would think it's not my account and your honor i would expect that when you would call you'd say this is the wrong account number and if we're in agreement on that point that's not what happened here because that didn't happen here until this second says the debt doesn't belong to me right that's a broader statement she says in the first e c d v report that this does not belong to me right right that's the language she uses lots of exclamation points correct she doesn't say that this debt does not belong she said this does not belong to me in westra the plaintiff in west said this account does not belong right because there's no private right of action and she herself seems to agree yes it's investigation but your honor respectfully i think we might have been coming to that point but what she keeps bringing up is this furnishing of data and the furnishing  as governor a even though she might caption it to keep bringing her claim under b but to the extent that she's challenging the investigation you're right it goes under six hundred eighty one as a cause interviewee and it's a question you know if that phone call been made with the discrepancy in account number that caused you to delete the account then truly have come to light sooner before she allegedly experienced adverse consequences well your honor if we could take a step back a moment the of c r a doesn't come into play until she actually cements the d v report you don't get into the c r a simply by picking up the phone and calling the debt collector directly you have to file an e c v report first in order to be covered under sixteen eighty is that the key thing i mean it seems like she's saying that verification means that you verify the soundness of the underlying debt by going back to the creditor but i gather that your position and there are some support for this and out of circuit case lies that no verify just means verifying for her what the information is so that perhaps she has enough information then to go back and challenge it with the creditor is that if am i tracking with that legal issue is that's correct your honor because she brings her claim under sixty ninety two g g b requires when you receive a dispute the debt collector to report back to the debtor the name and address of the original creditor and that's what  was done here but this court kin affirm summary judgment and any ground in one of the grounds was that before sixty ninety two g b gets triggered the debtor needs to submit a written dispute within thirty days but the district court to send that shit satisfied that requirements really seems here like this is verify what does it mean to verify is a more important issue that is correct your honor but she didn't because the she sent a certified letter and it shows a didn't get sent ok ok but verify and mean for this man that i mean so is it your position then it is that what would decide that issue what what it means to verify yes your honor what it means to verify under sixteen ninety two g b the statute is this definitive at what it says nothing about or never says we're looking at our own records here's your original creditor it's up to you if you want to go back to the original creditor and see if there's really a debt or how much the debt is or what the account number is or anything else it's the regional creditor you never tell her that that's why you put the original creditors contact information in the letter that's correct your honor however it's creating an unreasonable standard to the point that if the debt collector had to go back and check with theory the creditor debt collector just had to put a sentence in a letter saying all we're going to check is our own records if you think there's a problem with our records you have to go back to the original creditor that's just a sentence that's not burdensome for you but then your honor we then might be going into what other sections is that effecti i read separately sixty nine today g b requires my client to report the name and address the original creditor and if my client the debt collectors now have to go back to the original creditor every time  have the wrong person that's going to be impossible an impossible standard if anyone there is there any case law from another circuit that supports the notion that you have to verify it by confirming the validity of the underlying debt no your honor there are no decisions from another circuit which says you have to confirm the book legal validity of the done it before you proceed or contact the original creditor to confirm you're right if in fact the seventh circuit has held that it falls under the bonafide error exception when you rely upon your why the original creditors information that they give you if you fall within the bonafide air defense and f d c p a cli and that's what my client did ok for those reasons i asked this court to affirm the trial court's forty six page opinion granting my client's summary judgment they can all right thank you so much anything further ms w response to the letter was very clear my money back so if you look at the appendix one one one there is a positive six hundred dollars given to eighty when i got the u verse account they understood the error i contacted the credit bureaus the credit bureau said they understood i kept i gave them the account that i had from eighteen to they said the number was skewed if you look at appendix page one of knowing i received a letter from ia last april seventh two thousand fifteen they said we investigated this put the wrong account number and they said it's your account how could you investigate my account when you never reached out to a t n t then i went further and if you go to page twenty six of my brief when we took the deposition of the corporate representative for us the attorney asked the question do you think you were allowed to contact the original creditor as part of the policy there i don't think i was allowed to well what do you do what do you mean you weren't allowed to like i can't contact eighty for every a c d the i receive that's what he said therefore they had no intentions you have to put a person on notice if it's an account if it's my account i need to be able to reconcile that count and then i could have told them he said i should have told them why it wasn't my account how do you tell someone it's not your account if it's not your account the account was paid in for eighty and he was part of the the the lawsuit that i filed they settled because they realised there was an error and they furnished the wrong information my problem here forget about me ial last one percent of their collections are for student loans the average student coming out of college does not have the resources nor the ability unless they go to law school to fight them so that's a blemish it'll be on their credit report for seven years they waited five months after i put them on notice to take this off of my report and it was only after i felt the point so thank