would be dismissed but that the plaintiff would be deemed to be the prevailing party for purposes of a single individual cause of action it's important to note at the outset what this case is not about thank america is not challenging the agreement that it  that and that the trial court erred in determining what the facts were with respect to the degree of success in this case four hundred thousand dollars or almost four hundred thousand dollars in attorney's fees is expert and his testimony as well yes your honor and a careful look at that expert dr aeration reveals that the expert declaration has no basis in fact in other words the expert declared c but there were no facts to support that so for example the expert said that the settlement was an extraordinary achievement under difficult circumstances if you read the declaration carefully you will see that there's not one word of fact t support that so called opinion secondly he said the goals of the litigation were again he just says that there's no fast in the declaration to support that no work nor are there any facts in the record he said it provided substantial benefits to plaintiff cardholders and the public again now no facts in the declaration or in the record to support that statement in fact he said that the substantial benefit arose out of the fact that consumers the settlement agreement also provided no admission of liability in fact bank of america denied liability there was no evidence of any systematic i'm sorry systemic violations or institutional policies that either were changed or modified as a result of litigation and all of the cars that are home what do we do with the fact that we have a district judge who whether it's a change of position not change positions documentary changes at least with regard to what was going to be included in manuals and so on why is it that nothing playing an abuse of discretion standard f to describe simply and what was in the settlement your honor if one looks at what was in the settlement and applies the abuse of discretion standard it is unreasonable to spend four hundred thousand dollars more than four hundred thousand dollars a reasonable toward four hundred thousand dollars for the success that was achieved as compared to what i asked compared to other cases as compared to no i mean if in fact this you look at two things you look at what the plaintiff an intended to achieve in the case in whether in fact he achieved that and the answer to that is unquestionably no he intended to achieve either a monetary success of a million dollars on one occasion and received a thousand dollars or a intended to achieve some change in the bank's policies some significant change in the bank policy and in fact and what he was really looking for was for the bank to change its policy so that the bank would have to determine by however that was just an agreement between the parties with respect to whether the case would be resolved or not it had nothing to do with what was reasonable or not reasonable with respect to attorneys i don't think it should bear in any way on this court you today she made she explained her reasoning she explained her calculation she declined some lodestar for being unrelated and unsuccessful  already why is that not the case it's not the case primarily because the district court found that it was not the case and there was ample support in the records specifically if you look at the declaration of tamar lease which is the declaration that explains that the bank with the past she continues by saying that the plaintiff prevailed on the significant legal issue and discusses that the settlement requires the affidavit that i was  bank to go even further and help the credit reporting validity that we use in our marketplace by advising consumers to check their credit reports and look for incorrect in from she specifically cite those items agreement and we felt it was important that the training materials be changed and that is one of the items that our experts a lot specifically referred to as providing public benefit i don't have any damages and the notion album the dispute was over two hundred thirteen part of the two hundred thirteen dollars plane ticket and as we discussed in our birth briefing under the most usurious interest finance charge you can imagine over the course of litigation there's no way that damage would involved in the litigation was she reasoned the bank had violated teel and two were suspects and he knew enough to understand that allowed a five hundred thousand dollar maximum award in a class action for violations and he reasoned to violations a million dollars he demanded that it would be sent to a nonprofit fund not to himself and any of that and when we did get involved and we evaluated and amended the complaint to assert the claims we plaintiff spent his own time and money to the tune of about fifty thousand dollars fighting the bank before we got involved there's no compensation for that time and the lack of success for that purpose sort of in the terminal because it has been charged for that is certainly our view and it also raises the question that you asked my opponent about the compared to what question and i think that really is the interesting legal question that's going on here and the  the compared to what should be the settlement demand and we submit that that's incorrect in the barrios case from of course the circuit in two thousand and seven specifically states that a settlement to me and cannot be the sole basis for finding that a monetary award is de minimus and so the banks urging to take the settlement to me and it has been rejected already by this court the bank urges the absolute dollar value look at it it's only a thousand dollars well that's been rejected by this court twice once in the fair housing of marine case in two thousand and two and in the storm case the bank also where those nominal damages cases  plaintiff truly wanted to achieve some benefit to the card holders and was not focused on his own monetary gain which goes a long way to explaining why he didn't take five thousand dollars when he could have and instead decided to persist four and it provides that the bank will provide the affidavit attesting its policies and will continue to comply with sheila that's that's part of the agreement and it's our position t but it's our position that we have the ability this plaintiff has the ability to continue to enforce that agreement and that is no one else need not have to go through all of the blood sweat and tears as the district district court recognized the bank's quote strong opinion that plaintiffs did not achieve anything here the district court properly rejected that view and provided and stated plaintiffs achieved an excellent result for himself and for the putative class that was well within her discretion she reviewed the same arguments that were being made here she reviewed the substantial record and  cases here are the morales versus studies down afoul case which involved a modest award it wasn't huge but it was not deemed to minister and also achieve some significant public what was in it and she was pointing their to where the expert talked about the addition to the training materials talked about the difficulties that exist in the marketplace if somebody does not have their disputed report reported that way and he the expert went through a variety of ways of why this was meaningful in the district court considered that was in her discretion to consider that and in fact below the bank made no challenge to that expert declaration the bank agreed to quote the statute in its training manual once again there's no evidence that the effect of that statutory language was not already in the training manual the bank agreed to quote the statutory language it's a change i superficial elements to it that you really have to read everything very carefully if you read the declaration very carefully you'll find that the next two or three paragraphs have nothing to do with this case or the settlement they just are a little from mr moore indicating that he still disputed the item yeah maybe he sent the letter maybe we got it maybe we didn't recognize it appropriately this is one case an isolated incident and is does not in any way of america followed with respect to mr moore that those procedures are exactly what you're supposed to do under the under the statutes in place and that if in fact they had received or recognized that they had received a letter further disputing