and we are here because the district court granted the summary judgment motion that the markup are out and also granted them almost ten thousand dollars in cost which regards the case so resume to broader issues one that there are trial issues of fact in this case and also that under the fifth cause of action because this was a state claim originally and just nobody is the prevailing party in this one social security to update the status of two separate individuals with c r a's and what they did on that in that report was reported one individual to be deceased and the second one to be a li and using one social security number were two separate individuals and it connected it to a close account the count was actually closed two years earlier what it did not do it never close the he lock account that my client had and he never reported that that account somehow was connected to the two to ms norton who was reported as a deceased so when call to update her status and information with the bank the bank realized that they had indicated their deceased indicator on their own internal records they learned that they have an error here they took no steps they took no actions until my client actually attempted to purchase a home and she obtained a copy of her report on the morning that she was to see maybe just that seems to be the most critical element of damages for your client here is that a fair statement your on it yes yes ok because it just seemed as though maybe you can help us with this that he was her lawyer should have done a much better job assembling the evidence to support her claim that in fact she had accepted offer to purchase the house at a particular price and we have nothing from you on that front other than i think it's just her declaration and the thing from glendale federal decline in the loan right contract for the sale of the property without something in writing so i grant you that maybe you can't you don't have that your client is not the documents anymore but there were other people who were involved in the transaction who presumably could have provided declarations no well your honor there is a declaration from the ex husband sale to the purchase of the property there are other evidence with then with then there were heard to indicate that she actually was in the process of purchasing the property but what i like to emphasize though i don't believe this circuit requires documentary evidence and testimony is sufficient and we've sided number of cases with the courts so you don't necessarily have to have an evidence which would documentary evidence to prove that you are actually in the process of purchasing a  so help me with this so the bank tells us that the sale of the home occurred in i want to say they claim june of two thousand and thirteen maybe is july of two thousand and thirteen the the letter that your client received from glendale federalism in august of twenty thirteen actually and i go i believe they have a form number one i don't remember what the form numbers and they told us they have a soft copy they don't have a card copy apparently in their system the store it but they don't store a heart like a p d f format which you from your honor i may be lost at the date so if you can direct well i just hope i mean the you're evidence on this is is very suspect i guess i'm just trying to get you to help me understand what i'm missing that the bank is saying that this sale occurred earlier in the summer then the date on the letter that your client claims is the key proof that she was harmed by the bank's misconduct bureau i think there's a little bit of confusion on the date because what happened was my client attempted to purchase the property in june of two thousand and thirteen and the document that you're referring to regarding to august i believe it was refers to printed form which which has like the up like we was just a council forms and in our practice and you always get a date as the one in the form was updated and i think the date you're referring to your honor relates to the date of the form itself as opposed to the content of what the glendale federal provided in that record but there's also testimony your honor from informing the form of a declaration from the ex husband that he actually saw the letter when he was sent out to her because us as it was provided in the to the lower court my client was homeless for a number of months and she was receiving her mail at her ex husband's property or home and he was opening and cleaning up and organizing some because she just didn't have a place to put them and he reviewed that letter so he testified in his declaration us of the content of the letter that he saw when the denial was submitted and keep in mind she had waited such a long time to go to the process of getting her credit cleaned because bank of america made the promise that they're going to do that and they actually and she kept on going back to the branch to meet with the employees and this cussing the fact that ok what is the status i want to get an update i want to find out what's going on and they kept on telling her we're working on it it's coming up it's happening the just kept on telling character working on even even if we assume that she had lost this deal with regards to this home she would still call it she was still in the process of being qualified for some other property it wasn't this wasn't the last property on earth that she could purchase obviously she could have found something else to purchase the property but use it only claiming damages for the failure inability to purchase this one home back in no your honor actually there are other damages that we claim no no no no i'm talking about real property oh yes yeah you start with the c r a and they were going to take care of it and the and in fact their own internal records show that they did make this fight they filed those disputes on her behalf with the credit reporting agency did receive letters from the credit reporting agency with regards to the disputes but then bank of america takes the position that the disputes can only come in one single format which is the a c d v format and they seem to be under the impression i think i don't read them as maybe they're making that argument but i thought the more compelling argument they make is for your sixteen anyone else to claim i can't remember the terminology but the thing has to come from the c r a to the bank right and you're saying that you don't have any evidence that any communication went in that direction at all whether it was in this form that form or any form right that's not correct your honor we do because their own internal records have about four minutes left so if i can reserve that for rebuttal yes thank you i appreciate  c r a i'm sorry it's not a car from a credit reporting agency of any sort to the bank and she cited two pages of the transcript three o two and three zero nine we quote those in our brief page four they say nothing about a communication in that direction three zero nine says informed consumer that a credit bureau dispute has been filed and that she will receive confirmation via the mail reviewed case number so and so seems to be closed referring the customer to credit agencies directly samp the credit bureau report dispute letter in other words we sent them they sent us and the same thing is true of three o two it says that shows we were able to remove the deceased account indicator and provided a letter to back credit bureau disputes that were filed so there was simply no communication from the credit bureaus to the bank here to trigger the duty correct that the sixteen eighty one he believe it is requires a notice of dispute to be in the manner that it's agreed upon between the c r a and the furniture and the reason for that is explained in our brief that otherwise dispute letters could come floating into some remote branch that's not experienced in handling these sorts of things they are all handled through a c d e v's automated customer dispute verification forms that are sent by the he oscar system to a particular responder that's used to handling this sort of thing that's why the statute requires communications of disputes in a particular manner and that had been sent by the oscars ystem there would be a record of the c t v there would be a log on the oscar system there would be other indicators none of which existed here  the court below decided there was no evidence no evidence on and with the sale of this property i find that a little difficult to say no evidence there's some evidence i went through it and i found seven or eight cases that has that seemed to me to be germane to this issue on the damages point your honor no one on the complete issue of the whole process of whether or not you have a reasonable process and in the bank etc etc i just wonder if the if the trigger was pulled a little prematurely when you say there is no evidence and you make a ruling on that basis if there is some evidence then we have to send it back i'm i'm finding some difficulty for that there isn't some evidence well it depends on what issue you're talking about your have i agree with your basic proposition that if the trial and the district court had said there is no evidence and you can find evidence in the record then maybe on that issue the summary judgement is not sustainable it's got unless it's sustainable on an alternative ground and here was no damages and i believe you're addressing the no damages point yeah which i don't necessarily agree with your position but my point is that even if you were correct that there was some evidence of damage you know that doesn't get around the other requirement that was not fulfilled here which is showing that an was sent by the credit reporting agency to the bank so even if there was some evidence of damage if it wasn't if the duty to reinvestigate wasn't triggered status for the denial isn't that some evidence of that there's that there's that the chip have gone to further than just dismissal no your honor i don't believe so for a couple of reasons first off we challenge that denial letter is fabricated evidence you know we'll be able to do that at trial but they produced it well they produced it but the district court could and i think should have and did i think disregard it because it did not consider it to be you know the district court said there's no evidence no evidence that it was willing to consider  but the the other thing is just saying you didn't get a loan because of the deceased status doesn't show that the purchase of the property would have gone through anyway that's what has to what i've asked that's show but she had these affidavits in here that you know all about that look like that the money was there and the price was right and they may have paid pretty well got some evidence in that but for this unfortunate thing that says that she's deceased that she would have been able to purchase that property that there would be documentary evidence of a sale if a sale had actually been in the cards just saying i've got the money and the price looks right to me doesn't mean that the sale would have gone through but for the lack of a loan you have to have a willing seller and a willing buyer agreeing to an agreement there's no evidence of such an agreement and that if the agreement didn't happen because of the person having this come before them that the deceased is really admired the virus is really dead then that would be enough wouldn't well i don't think so because at least in ordinary real estate transactions the way it goes is the other way around yeah but you get well lose but the only question is was summary judgment premature i agree with that and i go back to my first point which is even if there's a question about damages there's no question about lack of and he no question at all there was no evidence whatsoever on that issue so it doesn't matter whether they can prove damages if they can't prove liability they still can't recover and the so you interpret some evidence to be in evidence that can prove their issue now lives that they have to produce evidence that they can win on no no your honor so they  sorry i think we're speaking past one another yeah but my point is that the summary judgment was based on two independent reasons you're speaking about one of them yeah and at this point since i haven't been able to convince you otherwise i'm willing to concede i just have a question my mind i'm not even telegraphing and then shit that i feel that i'm willing to concede the point don't be an image is for the moment if if that's the way you're going my point is she had to succeed on appeal the plaintiff must also show reversible error to the other independent ground on which the summary judgment was granted and that was the lack of and he c t v from this russia had all these abbreviations from the credit reporting agenc the bank yeah and because she can't overcome that independent basis for the summary judgment motion the issue on which your honor is focused so heavily is simply because i guess i seven hundred eighty five point two five a statute right i don't understand why she does not have a completely valid claim under that statute because that statute is punishing or imposing liability for the front and mistake that you your client made not the back end failure to fix the thing with the c r a is and so why why doesn't she have a viable claim under that statute while they're there for reasons stated in our brief and to  reiterate them very quickly first off pull over says f o finance wrong that this isn't just flatly wrong it's not consistent with the statute so i don't think the california supreme court if it ever were called upon to decide this question would go there so i won't belabor it because big just tell me if i'm missing something because it says a person shall not furnish information on a specific transaction and your client did furnish information good that everybody agrees now is was false so under the plain language of the statute liability is triggered i recognize what paul said but i don't see how that can be reconciled with what the statute says well i can say is that the only california  published opinion on this point it unequivocally holds can you reconcile what the court said there with the language of the statute i believe that what the pulver either directly or indirectly it did not change the language of the liability section point thirty one and we believe that that shows the legislature did not intend to overrule look at what i'm talking about but i ask you to just forget about poker for a second just to help me with what respect to what your client did here line up with what part what part of the statute is not satisfied the there are two other apart from damages there are two other reasons why we say this claim was properly dismissed one is we've maintained reasonable procedures which is a defense to this claim look at what procedures with respect to the front end air did you what evidence is you put on of those procedures to prevent the mistake when somebody comes into one of your client's branches and says my father died your you on the front and to the c r a so you need to put on evidence to prevent that mistake from occurring and i don't see any evidence on the record as to that you put on evidence about the back end procedures i'm talking about the front end mistake that you all  front end mistake was a mistake of attributing a social security number to the wrong customer know it was you being to your client being told that a father died and you all reporting to the credit reporting agencies that the daughter died that's the mistake that is all she's complaining about but that but she told us that she was alive after the mistake had been made that's my point but nobody screwed up in terms of communicating the information to your client nobody said mistakenly that the daughter had died they told you the father had died you all are one hundred percent responsible for screwing this up because you all reported to the credit reporting agencies that the daughter died nobody gave you battle but it was the question is whether it's a reasonable mistake following reasonable procedures and i think here that the evidence is clear there was a reasonable mistake we had one social security number and you know we had no way of telling two well the statute is violated only if the bank knew or should have known at the time it made the incorrect furnished incorrect information that information was incorrectly yeah you most certainly should have known that when someone tells you by the person's name that this person died and you report that a different person died i don't understand how could that be how could you not have known that you should not have made that mistake i grant you that they came in and they gave you some misinformation they gave you the wrong social security number they gave you the wrong name i grant you that but as far as i can tell from the record they give you all the correct information as to which person died and you all unilaterally screwed up by reporting somebody else  i'm missing something i don't believe that we were we were told that the father died until the daughter came in and said you got the wrong person and that was after position that unless that particular form is used to return make to give notice of the error there is no liability under the f c r a right the notice of dispute has to be given in the manner agreed also say that there is no evidence of any communication whether sent in by a cd d v d or some other means from a credit reporting agency to the bank about this dispute it which regards to your three zero to the there's an internal memo from faculty america within bank of america and in that document they talk about that the provided the letter back to the credit bureau disputes that were filed by their ex their explicitly referencing credit bureau disputes that were filed to their referencing letters now with regards to the notice from the normal course of cases it's been held that regular notice from a consumer is insufficient for the bank to take actions however there's nothing in the statute a they've already waived that requirement and it is within in fact i would cite to in the language that was quoted by this court in nelson and gorman where the court actually discussed the policies behind as to why did buffer was created to allow the banks to be shielded from life and give them some room however there is nothing in the language of any of these two cases that prohibited or somehow limited the waiver by the bank by their own conduct to waive the requirement of the notice if you have any further questions on the morning