practice act and specifically the complaint was filed as a result of the defendant attempting to collect a debt from plaintiff the filing of a state court collection complaint as well as through plausible that since the debt was based upon a personal credit card that the debt was incurred for personal family or household purposes and i think this is supported by the case of brown cited in a were collected by the defendant's right i mean it's an odd problem under the statute that you just tricked judge seem to be struggling with because one of the purposes of the statute was to address the problem of debt collectors addressing their efforts to the wrong person you know it's just not my my dad and lots of people can think of examples of that happening to themselves or someone they knew and so you pointed out o that the statute in different places refers to alleged dads and alleged obligations and so forth and so person who's alleged to be that and so i guess when they came back on the other side saying  but it needs to be consumer debt essentially it's a longer phrase that consumer debt the best someone can do if there is no debt to begin with i mean i can't say the debt that i never had  is anything really you know the target run i never major or you know the cost to run for my business or or whatever so so the pleading standard has to end somehow comp negation scenario so what do you think someone needs to do is it your position you don't need to plead consumer nature at all or do you think it's enough to say they proceeded against me and i dad's certainly is refuted by their own position on the website that you have needed to amend your complaint to tie that point off no your honor i think would have been nonsensical because the district court grounds and at a minimum you should have another shot and just record those grounds are wrong sure if that's that's a hypothetical if that was the basis then we certainly could have amended at that time to a certain more facts if that was a defect found but that's position that he doesn't know i don't know what amendment he was thinking of actually you probably didn't either chips fall where they may later well i think the district court was clear even the district court noted that discovery will bear out whether or not it's a consumer that he did b c to be a different district court judge should there be any remain and the district court also stated that it probably thinks that it probably is a supposes that there's a high probability that it is a consumer debt so these were issues reached at all they were actually discounted in fact at the first hearing now the judge for this report told the defendant to take a hard look at their motion and their motion then makes the same arguments as your motion now but the court completely discounted it told plaintive not to respond and then ultimately dismissed on wholly different ground how i'll give a an example my name is diane wood there's no other diane wood who's the secretary in the eastern district of virginia like her emails unfortunately occasionally  she's a deadbeat and she buys a car and never pays for it you know it all goes into the collection and somebody comes after me and i say i don't regard a car i you know i'm the wrong person how do i plead that how do i since i don't know her i've never seen her accounts i don't have any idea that she even exists in the world i'm just giving her see examples to do there isn't another  person how does a person who's the wrong person make a representation about a dad they've never heard of never seen don't know what it was for or is this just something somebody can't do in your view this is outside the elements lead elements this court has made this clear time and again you know the pleading is for notice although you have to leave enough facts to put the defendant on notice and to make a plausible claim that i want you to tell me dictate the complaint that meets the criteria that you are suggesting that is filed by a person who was the wrong target shooters there's twelve thousand and thirty cases filed a year ok in federal court that was a debt at all so how do you know that the money that this debt collectors coming after you for was for consumer purposes as opposed to somebody who's little you know side front process is information about the debt for instance if it was medical debt it's almost surely going to be a personal debt however it could also be for all we know that this credit card was used to pay for parking ticket that we don't know it's possible you know to see how if it's not your debt all you can do is put a paragraph in the complaint that violates rule leben because you have no knowledge and you say this wasn't a consumer you know first of all you can was or wasn't you know this was the death of somebody else who i've never heard of that they're trying to collect was a consumer debt and you don't know that for so you can go to state court not necessary get to go to federal court i don't that's about state quarter federal court how are you going to assert this claim when you don't wrong in his determination that under the supreme court law and what had to be pled you can't get to the b and a motion practice if all you have a cert that's passable or speculative and that's all that we have right here and it's maybe some different  mutual but they have to play something more than that and that's all he did he got the ruling right based on the supreme court law on the seven circuit law and when he was talking about discovery have to read the next paragraph said but we're not there at this go read the pleading and you have to get letter is going to talk about a lawsuit is going to talk about it or you're going to be discussions about it that is what happens the reality of the lawsuits that are filed in this in this courthouse of the two or three thousand are filed a notice of law that's what happens it's rare when there's a circumstance when you don't it doesn't mean that have the elements and that was one of the elements he did not have and they don't have and nobody this courthouse nobody can say that i know this is consumer debt or if it's plausible that it's consumer debt what they can say is it's possible it's consumer that nicole was very clear the fence council has repeatedly said that this is a weird circumstance we disagree that it's weird this does happen all the time however it's a very important around the pleading problem that happens all the time well as the district court found this wasn't a pleading problem at all this was a problem because mr low had didn't know that and the court could not have been clear that because he didn't know the debt there was no debt because he didn't owe the debt he couldn't be a consumer that was the basis of his ruling if we're going to entertain the hypothetical the issue is that defendant would wot to exist that really don't exist that we're not a basis for the court's ruling we easily could have amended if that was the situation if the district court found and it did not find any issue with how the debt was defined as a consumer that if it had done so then we could have amended we could have asserted facts to show that ninety percent of the debts that similar and main street collect are consumer debts certainly that we support that the possibility of this being a consumer debt as well individually not in any sort of business capacity also supports the possibility that this is a consumer debt what's being conflated here is the standard summary judgment and the standard of pleading mr shots referred to two time to prove that the debt was a consumer debt that's not where we're at we're at the possibility stage our burden is much lower than that in burton ambleside in fact those cases support our claim because the plaintiff was allowed to go forward to prove an attempt to prove for the debt was a consumer debt so for these reasons roger we feel that the court got it wrong the fed has completely recast issues to what the defendant wants issues to be but the real issue is does definitions of a consumer and that don't require a debt don't require someone to be obligated the word allege it is contained in each definition sixty one to a three the finance consumer as any natural person obligated or allegedly obligated it can't be argued the mr law wasn't allegedly obligated they sued him they went to trial and they lost they called him up and they said you will money do you want to pay it similarly sixty nine to eighty five which defines debt means any obligation or a legit obligation of a consumer for the same reason mr law it was alleged to be obligated because they sued him and they called them they said you all this money do you want to pay it