thank you god or attorney robert mitchell on behalf of the monash is a please the court going to jump right in asked it is a medical debt collector are trusted by seven different hospitals to collect medical debts so we're talking about a large organization acting on behalf of large organizations asset is required to avoid demanding money from patients that patients don't know what does it mean to avoid these types of violations well this court has already decided in rancor what that means is that debt collectors cannot just sit back wait to make mistakes and then institute a procedure that would correct that mistake in the future record also told us that the collector is required to maintain procedures that are designed to avoid discoverable errors including but not limited to errors in calculations and itemization which is exactly what we're dealing with in this case riker tells us is that  problems before they occur and this area of collection that's rather easy to do we're talking about a medical debt collection for this specializes in medical debt collection when we deal with medical debts there's in there's a  document called an e o b an explanation of benefits that insurance company produces and that document held is everything that we need to know about the debt it held as what was billed what was paid what the patient owes makes it pretty easy on anybody trying to collect that  yet asset as a medical debt collector and collection expert does not have any policies to even requested you know be they don't have a policy to requested from the patient they don't have a policy to request it from to take away from work the time that they had to take out of their lives to address the situation repeatedly with their multiple disputes to retain an attorney on their behalf to the time they spent on the phone with the hospital the insurance jobs to devote to correcting this problem investigating this problem so you know representation and then we solicited what their hourly rate was which is pretty standard for this area of practice and then you just take the number of hours that they had to take away from their lives to devote to this and multiply it by their hourly wage and which i think you have a simple question ok well if the dollar amount of actual damage is off the top of my head your honor i don't remember the exact dollar amount and i think we got it was simply letting the jury know the amount of hours and then their hourly rate and i think the jury was going to put a final dollar on it if the judge is looking for a ballpark it's not enormous it's probably a one thousand dollars happening when a patient disputes a bill and the e o p has all of the answers about the dispute as it doesn't ask anyone for that you'll be in this particular case what we had going into summary judgment the nd time around was as knitting that it mailed a letter demanding approximately seven thousand dollars that it made a subsequent telephone call demanding approximately seven thousand dollars asked that it mid that money was not owed which means that asset admits violating the statute by demanding an amount that was not so the only way that asset can avoid liability under the strict liability statute is to per prove the single affirmative defense provided under the statute they have to affirmatively prove that that didn't show what was paid and it turns out that the e o p reflected the exact amounts exact claim itself the amount that was paid by the insurance company and the remaining four hundred dollars balance in the e o p was exactly what plaintiffs have been saying exactly what their insurance company had so thank you your honor i will address the request for reassignment to a different trial judge on read man court has broad discretion to reassign to a different  and basically the court looks at three factors in the case does the trial judge have a substantial difficulty in putting previously expressed news out of his mind or made findings that were determined to be erroneous or based on evidence that should be rejected number two is it buys able to preserve the appearance of justice and number three would there be waste in your cation by assigning the case to a different judge out of proportion to the preservation of just as the court doesn't need to look for any actual bias or impunity lack of integrity on the part of the judge so let me talk about how those factors are met here the trial judge in this case has previously expressed very strong views against the f t c against the c p a plaintiffs and against this case in particular and these plaintiffs in particular in the boca versus anzio case he compared f t c ph cases to an infestation said that some plaintiffs are even seeking to turn their own failure to pay in a profit repeatedly that there are that nuisance settlement of flimsy cases that require no real effort should not result in any fees to the plaintiff's attorneys because that would be a miscarriage of justice these are the previously expressed views of the trial of the record he expresses a distaste for this irrational litigation and frustration at page seven hundred and sixty three of the record he expresses a sentiment about society getting very based on the same the same issues now for the nd part of that test we have multiple erroneous filings findings sorry the st one is that the trial judge apply the wrong legal standard to the c p a when he dismissed the case and secondly he didn't even address the washington consumer protection act claim the rule fifty dismissal didn't address it at all didn't give us an opportunity or anything whether it was an intentional deceptive practice page five thousand and ninety eight of the record he applies a contributory fault barry to the plaintiffs saying quote from my perspective there's enough blame to go around page with the evaluation saying that there's no evidence anybody ever threatened litigation because there was no unprofessional or accusatory tone there are separate parts of the statute so clearly reassignment is advisable to preserve the appearance of justice here and this panel doesn't even need to you know look deeply into whether whether the trial judge was biased and furthermore it wouldn't create any waste or duplications it would actually be the most efficient thing if this court were to give plaintiff's judgment on liability and we went back for just a trial and damages we can do that in a day but the concern is that if we were to get reassigned to the same trial judge it might result in a rd of he'll and i don't think anybody wants that additionally there are plenty of structural errors and unusual circumstances in this case there was some improper coaching from the bench of the defense witnesses after several objections where where that he overruled he would then turn to the defense witness and say if she knows she can say if she knows she can answer she can answer if she knows it looks very much like the deposition conduct that the standard orders in our district tell us we should have boy and those are pages fourteen lastly it's a very unusual circumstance where we go up on appeal and we come back and the trial court says he has to read the tealeaves when he's reading the order from this court says it's cryptic unnecessarily ambiguous and then dismisses our case for the same reasons the nd time it's very much like that us versus rest on the case where the trial judge imposed the same exact sentence because he didn't like the instructions from this court and so with no opportunity to cure or at the rule fifty dismissal and all of these clear irregularities unusual circumstances this is the very situation where this case should exercise its authority to tell us we get a different judge on remand thank you thank you question under the russian your consumer protection act that goes to this timeframe that you lay out under subsection twenty why and it talks about trying to collect money that's not  and as that things one number is zero but in they and realizes that number is too high hence as small number how does that fit into the language whether there's liability for trying to collect money n rebuttal on behalf of the fine ashes attorney robert mitchell for the record your honor thank you regarding the reasonable procedures question the burden does not rest with i know that is an affirmative defense that used to be affirmative we prove to defend it and the defendant was unable to do that in deposition marry him or to an individual who signed to decorations on behalf of asset was asked when was the last time you conducted training of your staff she said i don't know was it a month ago i don't know a year ago maybe i don't know do you think it happens at least once a year i don't know you don't know how often you train your staff i didn't come prepared to answer that question are there any kind of training manuals that you use when you train them no you know if there are manuals that are used in the training i don't know the training itself she said consist of they train the collectors on the at the c p a one time when they're hired a quote from her is that there is no repeat training they talk about reliance on a reasonable creditor but then they admit during this case that legacy was not a reasonable creditor or a reliable creditor and the reason for that is that this issue overlaps with two thousand five hundred other accounts so that speaks to the materiality issue this was a material mistake because this case when it was filed cause asset to pull two thousand five hundred similar counts returned into legacy and legacy wrote those debts off be evidence that they took reasonable effort as it is not your only because in record with this court said was that it is the it is before the violation happens to a boy the violation is what's required to prove that affirmative defense and avoiding a violation means that you need to anticipate it and you need to prevent it from happening in the st place riker specifically said they collectors and not sit back wait to violate the statue and then take action to ensure that it doesn't re privy to what may have happened there but it is kind of a mystery to me why case with no amount of damages and my attorney's fees clinton's shadow do you think that another round could potentially be productive absolutely i think that if this court re re mans this case back to a different judge and that judge is going to win orders of them you need to go to mediation i think at that point the parties will probably come together i do not agree that the damages in this case are limited to one thousand dollars the plaintiffs both of them put on substantial evidence about how this wrecked their lives while they are just out of baby is a cow heels with a newborn they had another child and they were dealing with this and it wrecked their lives mom lost enter with men they will not issue for a period of time could permit mediation if the parties one of the two know that may prove helpful in this case your honor my fear is well as a practical matter as i understand it if you were to prevail on this and he you know or any part of that apart from settlement the remedy would be to go back to trial is that right yes  and i think that any district judge that it's remitted to would say before you go to trial you need to take another shot of mediation if it's remanded to a new judge and i'm that you judge what i would say is you guys are going to mediation because they have the ability to run their courtrooms