i'd like you to address the punitive damages issue if you would be kind enough to do that just speaking for myself i find it difficult to figure out when a dollar amount is too hard or not high enough or whatever but in the context of the default all the facts a wire attached are taken as true so there is reprehensible behavior that's a given and so why is why is the amount too high given the level of malice described in the compliant your honor i agree with you that when a default is taken the facts are as true with the exception of damages and let the exception of legal conclusions a legal conclusion that it's reprehensible has to be based on the facts and i'm asking you to assume that the truth of the facts and that they do support some amount are punitive damages why is the amount too hi and there was one hundred thousand dollars worth of damage to the point that's what this point to testify to that there was one hundred thousand dollars worth and that's what the court awarded him but the facts don't support that and in fact i think you they've declined to give us a specific ratio if they would do that it would be easy with a calculator but here we have a six and a half to one approximately why is that too much not physical we know that right in the brain yeah so my sending a bill to the wrong address is not the kind of thing that we want anybody to do but it certainly doesn't in the second guy let's not reckless disregard for the safety or health of other it's just a mistake and in our society we have computers do everything billions of bills go out every single day it's something that unfortunately in this case happened he was arguing liability really well and i don't i that was for federal jurisdiction but i think what's important the court found all three jurisdictions and although a m r put forth the standard of review for supplemental jurisdiction and mentioned it in that summary of argument of my question is if we were to conclude that it is too much should we set an amount or should we remain handed to the district court for reconsideration well i don't think it's too much and i don't think it's too much younger this circuit's law or the united states supreme court the standard was a single digit state farm in that case that got a million dollars compensatory in the u s supreme court said well you know we need to pull back that now did you arrive at that number and i look to try to figure out what what sort of factored into i look at their treatment of him or the art you know i looked at their treatment for him for over two and a half years it was been late on a master card bill he has never not paid a bill and that's been restored to him now at this point actually it hasn't i'm still fighting trying to get the three major credit reporting agencies to take this off of his his account i mean dealing with the three major reporting agencies trust me it's a whole new ball of wax i got home all private rule and she can't subpoena other records so no it isn't over he continues to trying to clear up his them to one ratio now you know i you know i would give the award strikes me here six point five strikes me i'm probably on the upper end i would agree that it's probably on the upper end but i still think it's supportable by the law and appropriate under these circumstances this is a multimillion dollar company who ignored the judicial process for over two and a half years why simultaneously sending bill mr bennett and now they report they can't even find a file on him so there's no way to try this case because we have no exhibit a is missing their file everything they told bay area everything they told the credit reportin attorney has have stated i think i had one hundred in one thousand dollars and emotional distress damages they made that determination as to how much they felt and they made that high mr bennett in his testimony before the court even before i provided  deposition said he had a few months ago had lost a couple nights and took some etc he said he was frustrated and angry there is no evidence in this case even on the record before this court that he suffered severe emotional distress damages comparable to