beginning and seven i think ok you're familiar with the case you've already said that the bankruptcy courts were got i screwed up on the facts they screwed up substantially on the law they screwed up doesn't roll over your argument well the ninth circuit in taggart this came out obviously in april it's under review there's there's a lot of there's an bank right now  son doesn't dispute that and the judge found for that but the judge said and said of did the creditor know the discharge applied to its claim it confused both parts of the test it said did the creditor know the discharge applied to something the plain there are two different things let me ask you this new songs entire claim was not discharged right i mean their rights in the vehicle were not affected by the discharge correct the interim rights were not affected but that was that wasn't before the court and the debtor had surrendered that right after discharge and the son was well aware that there's another issue about the manner in which you surrender which i think is not before us but which i find troublesome but anyway let's let's let's union that refers to claim and if you look back at that conduct if you look back a desire logs i log starts off by saying the party has to know that this charge was applicable correct and then later on it starts talking about being applicable claim and the discharge is an injunction right correct doesn't injunction operate on conduct that's what injunctions do right they stop people from doing things or so how can and doesn't make perfect sense to say a discharge you know the you know have tagore and they all talk about claim you have all the baptist missions you have all the bankruptcy court decisions they all refer to claim not one court refers to conduct i've i've searched i can't find one this is the first and my question is this how can a claim violate an injunction because it's a nap to collect on the claim it's the act that violates the injunction is not the claim that violates the injunction right right seems to me that when we talk about i was on the taggart panel it seems me when you would be talking about the discharge applying to a claim we're talking about we're sort of using shorthand who has to be an act that is a place that the discharge applies to computer glitch that notices didn't go out there was a screw up on the facts which is the second part of my argument and the record conclusively shows that they were aware of the discharge applied to their claim and they were aware that the in august and were complaining of all the acts of september october november and after the august nissan knows that the car's repossess white why send a billing statement at that point it's in their contempt of a court order didn't arise out of bankruptcy lawyer rosat and other law in which a judge orders someone to do something and therefore that the litigant heard the judge say it knows what the order is and walks out of court and violates the court order and the judge brings him in holds him a contempt of the court order because he knew about it and said screw you i'm going to do it anyway and the bankruptcy context we send out notices in the mail we have a injunction that operates by statute and it just doesn't work we send out the end of the notice and says there's an injunction they may or may not have gotten it and there  confusion in the ninth circuit case we have female litigants who are pursuing a claim work discrimination claim they've been told despite what they're getting in the mail that they can go forward didn't intend to violate the injunction they're not the same as the person who comes in and says i heard your daughter but i'm going to do it anyway and so here we have kind of the same situation we got a very confusing set of communications from the debtor to the creditor and which the creditor now is confused about whether the bankruptcy applies you can disagree with me but it's better not to shake your head at me  violate the discharge of consulates look deal with the problem that that your client presents which is because of the the multiple ways you approach a consumer in other words you have billing department she got part of others this is something where there's there's numerous affirmative action as a cause for us to send them the states but there was a statement there was also an affirmative act at some point said stop sending the statements and he's on sent three or four more  the crux here i think that they have developed a little bit more because eventually the vehicles sold eventually there's a motion to hold you in contempt that's filed which i presume that you got from  how it's developed because it you know we see some obligation to protect the discharge injunction to help make it have some impact so that people don't do things in violation of the d junction and by applying contempt traditional contempt law to that injunction which which basically requires you know the litigant almost to be in court and hear the judge say don't do something and then have the the litigants stand up and sell do what i wish before you can find him in contempt just doesn't work in the bankruptcy context we send out notices and and we want that notice to be effective and we want people to respect that that notice and we find ourselves dealing with banks and car companies who come in and say well i we didn't intend to violate the injunction and you sent a notice to our registered agent and that didn't get to the bankruptcy guy are you send it to the local office in that office was closed two weeks ago and and so we didn't get it i mean how do we how do we prevent you from filing the discharge injunction if you simply can always come up with some sort of bureaucratic reset response that gives you a you know to that address and so but then we don't have that then it makes it more difficult because like you said there are different departments and so that address is registered with the bankruptcy notice in the center cracked as it is that publicly available publicly known do to people know to go to the b n c when they're not sending address i mail through the b n c to find that address you are right i think it's something that people have to look through into the bankruptcy court to get that accomplished the thing here  but as i said i think that's where where should really go because it's like you said it makes a very confusing for for creditors because they're saying that they're not getting it it's confusing for debtors because  they're saying why sent this stock into an address of that particular creditor and you know we have a code section those supposed to answer these questions three forty two was supposed to answer these questions but i didn't see anywhere in the record that either side argued whether these notices were or weren't sufficient under section three forty two so there is there is a statutory provision that may or may not solve the problem but was there at least was an effort to deal with picking the right clearly you violated the destroyed shanklin based on what you've done here i just don't i'm not going to accept your explanation that you didn't know and i'm not going to hold the litigant to the standard of pro subject give content to violate the discharge injunction the problem with the case law as it now stands is that you could stand before us and say yeah we did it and we're sorry  plus after the motion was filed well again i mean it goes to the fact that we didn't understand that we want well that's an interesting slice here because under agency laws i mean nissan do m a c new it's just that whoever was responsible if anybody was in it wasn't a computer did not appreciate it which  my client certainly did not intend to lie like this are gorgar it's what your client knew it got these knows it got multiple statements including at some point some level the motion itself it's just ink get to the exact person or computer which i don't think is in the record who controlled these things going notices from the bankruptcy court that that had been discharged that they were creditors and they were they received the normal discharge injunction but they've been told by the lawyers that didn't apply to their i mean that was a confirmed claim but they were at their plan it been dealt with then and and they've been told by the lawyers they could go forward their lawsuit and under that under that kind of mixed situation that the court said well and it's in the record that you're getting into the legal argument but the facts are there you don't even have to reach the legal argument they knew and that's it but the judge tonight is that and that's the third point is there were there was no process there was no evidence or hearing he denied us discovery discovery was outside and we were trying to get at the intent we we found all these holes in their reply it's all over the record they knew of it they knew the repossession they received a miscoded the cease and desist notice  five six different times but isn't that just certain it didn't really did not i well they didn't i receiving stuff at the court in a way it seems to me almost gave you the benefit of the doubt and said that you said all these things the court didn't doubt that things were sent to the address that which you sent them i guess i'm wondering whether you're looking for just icing on the cake through discovery or whether there is something new that you reasonably expected to get a judge stopped all discovery right under stay sick leave he said i want to look at this before we apply correctly but he also did mention he said i understand there's factual disputes i understand there's factual disputes of their intent what was really their intent there's factual disputes of the actual damages so and i listed in my my br contempt he gave a second bite at the apple and we sent out five more notices and they responded on the last day doesn't the judge have discretion to say i want a little better notice even if you give in the middle generally adequate notice i agree and maybe we get a little bit more evidentiary hearing it's good for the goose is good for the gander nash doesn't apply he gave up the car they knew that it's in there it's in their evidence that they submit it why would you send a billing statement if you don't have a car if the car's not there what other purpose other than to harass and again the court keeps focusing in on all of it isn't it doesn't even if we accept what you say is true all you've really proven they've messed up how do you how do you prove that they subjectively intended to violate the state it so that that someone who knows it to stay discharge injunction i say stay the discharge injunction applied that the dead had been they don't deny that the ninth circuit only talks the claim lay them is reading conduct where the word claim exists and you're giving credit to that but it just does not exist i understand what you're  saying are there any other questions you know for me again i think this this case can be decided just on the facts alone if you look at the at the record it shows conclusively they were on notice it's negligence they screwed up on negligence the only reason this thing stopped was because i brought a motion if i did not bring that motion they'd still be harassing thank you very much indeed the case is