collector under the at the c p a and to raise by rawlings for the first time on appeal whether anthony has article three standing is especially submitted that the district court's decision should be reversed as anthony's that wasn't a fault when wrongs first had the right and responsibility to based on two very different letters in this case first we have the january twenty first two thousand and fifteen oxford letter sent on oxford's letterhead to gerald petit who is anthony's father and a nonparty the oxford letter petit states the following in bold capitalized font it states audit notice response required second part of a letter as part of our ongoing effort to control the cost of health care and i highlight the word our because it clearly refers to oxford as it's on oxford letterhead my third point on about the letter is that it also states regardless of how the situation arose oxford is due reimbursement for claims and my next point is based on a reference number and i'll explain why that's relevant shortly the reference number on this letter is h c h seven nine five nine one zero and finally about this letter the signature line is from oxford and notably this oxford letter fails to state my client's name and then his name is nowhere to be seen on this letter it only states my client's father general petty quite the question with respect to this letter is whether rawlings headed up taint the debt by that point right that's that's the question i would say was in the fall by the time it was obtained and we need to establish when it was obtained and i think if you look at the transcript from summary judgment and also the pre motion conference and i think we have to look at those those transcripts as a whole and not an isolated question and answer that i had with judge angle mire and i think if you look at the pre motion conference and you also look at the summary judgment argument one of the things i was trying to talk about was this controversial paragraph in the statement of fact payment coupon like the second letter why doesn't have all the f t c v a d notices on it why doesn't it have the new york city debt collection notice and most importantly why is it signed from oxford and the reason the reason is is because rawlings didn't have and specifically said that a pain is when you actually have the right response when you have the possession and the right and responsibility to collect the debt and when this first letter is sent first of all it's not even sent to my client it's sent to his father it's got a different reference number so i'm not sure what they're trying to collect in this d but most importantly they clearly didn't have the right and responsibility to collect the debt because there's no payment that's the difference that's why we have to look at these two letters differently wri this responsible for and ministering and collecting the debt isn't that what it's they might be that that's what it says but they're not actually engaging in debt collection at this point they're not engaging in recovery that's not what they're doing all they're doing is an audit the question is whether c notices we've got the new york city license number we've got a payment on actually holding up the wrong video but we actually have a payment coupon and it's actually sent to my client as opposed to this first letter which isn't even sent to my client has a completely different reference number think just on that point because i again i think judge asked me that oral argument i think certainly this that was in default when at the first time that rawlings actually had the opportunity and the duty engage in that collection and that was right before this february sixth two thousand and fifteen letter was sent out to my client and one of the things we know is an internal document from wrong which talks about you know what what someone supposed to do where the answer you supposed to give when the initial notification from the insurer so in this case it would have an oxford we've been contacted to handle calls to process payments on behalf of the insurer if payment is not made then the amount due is considered in default wrong's will generate future collection notices which is exactly what they did i just don't understand first of all why they never bring this from the beginning and i just don't understand that issue now we've clearly played in for what's what's been referred to postpone as an informational injury this has been done the world though this the country over most recently in this court back in december  court's decision and your honor i know you were on that panel i'm against a community bank and one of the things that can establish standing after spokeo are these types of informational injuries and here what we allege is that under section six hundred ninety two g of the the violation the alleged violation is that the letter referred to the reverse notices are on the reverse and side of being on the reverse it's it's on a separate sheet of paper or is there more to it than there's more to it and i think i learned to that in a letter we uploaded last week there's actually two d violations and longs didn't bring that up there's there's the first is that it's on a separate second page and the second part of it is that if you look at this is again  this is the joint appendix page forty three is that there's also an overshadowing argument and as we know from the statute you're not allowed to put anything else in the debt collection letter that overshadows on the consumer's right to the genome and so if this g morning honest richard cohen from lowy danberg cohen and hart for the defendant to probably rawlings your honor focused in correctly on the right question here which is when did rawlings obtain the debt and this was not a rule twelve b six motion this was a rule fifty six motion following seven months of discovery when judge ruled on rule twelve b six he accepted as true as he's required the pleadings which said that rawlings hadn't obtained the debt until after they sent the debt collection notice discovery proved otherwise and the court below at least three times and its decision point to the fact that we had to do step in that we had taint the debt by no later than january twenty one twenty fifty when we when rawlings sent the first letter and that the defendant did nothing more than speculate that we had the evidence includes appellate about the argument that the january twenty first letter was on oxford's letterhead it was and as the court pointed out that letter in at least three i think maybe four places directed that everything be conducted rawlings if you want to question it call rawlings if you want to work it out call rawlings if you want to pay send the check to rawlings as a matter of record evidence the investigate and recover potential over payments due to coverage expiration which is the precise set of facts presented by this case in the rule fifty six point one statement the parties agree that rowling sent the january twenty one twenty fifteen record in the first short cliff affidavit at joint appendix page fifty eight that's may twenty six twenty sixteen sharp cliff testifies to the process and says that rawlings gets the raw data not assignments of debt or done if occasions of debt from oxford they get raw data they mine it and they do what they're required to do by appendix j of the master service agreement minet a den of fi it and collect it the second sure cliff affidavit july one twenty fifteen joint appendix pages one fifty two to one fifty six rebut the speculation that the plaintiffs asserted on the summary judgment motion that a second oxford assent was required before rawlings was authorized to recover and collect the debt so if that's not the process that's not how it works the n s a provides this i've been doing this seven years this is the way it's always done we get raw data we find the overpayment just triggers it they actually prepare it and send it and consistent with the signs it's on side it's stamped consistent with the stamped oxford and it says pay rawlings consult with rawlings consistent with the fair debt collection practices act this is purposes the first notice that goes out bares a name that ensure it's going to recogni insured is insured by oxford it has an oxford letterhead and it says to resolve this through rawlings so it's not there to scare the insured that he's been that he has a diff debt in default and that there are any adverse record is pretty clear here your honor there's been at least two concessions by the plaintiff that the debt was in default at some point between the two letters that's at joint appendix page forty two line seven to eight where at oral argument on the summary judgment motion the court said help me with respect to the text of the exemption what you're saying is there isn't a default i think until the second letter mr wolfe rawlings right in terms of the exemption the court correct yes in the mr will said i'm sorry to interrupt your honor at some point between the two letters there was an earlier on the record admission that join appendix twenty six that the court so on the record the first letter goes from oxford letterhead on january twenty one you are not saying it is in  you mr wolf no and then mr wolf goes on to say that at some point between before february sixth maybe february third but it's a matter of record evidence that this debt was not in default until some time after the january twenty one twenty fifteen letter and that's consistent with alibrandi which says there must be period before between the time a debt becomes due and it goes into default consistent with the purposes of the fair debt collection practices act it's anomalous that we have the plight of here trying to say no i was in default earlier which triggers a  after the summary judgment motion was first filed and for whatever reasons counsel down below didn't didn't think to raise it before the court as but your honor it's a real issue these kind of make wait no injury cases are precisely what spokeo is intended to drive out of the courts the fair debt collection practices act is a serious act intended to curb abuses what we have here is a slip and nothing more than a slip and i can even quote from strew bell where of the four claims community bank where i recognize your honor was on the panel and of the four tyla claims to were tossed on article three standing grounds and distinguish between substantive and procedural violations and i'm  where the court says that a bear procedural violation is not a concrete injury and what is a bare procedural obligation well that requires us to plaintiff was not injured in fact he he received a windfall out of all this week he cut his prescription drugs he got his insurance coverage and he got six hundred dollars to boot which he hasn't refunded yet he's up  he's up on the house here what the quote this court defined as a bare procedural violation is where the disseminated injury where what is not what is a concrete injury and not a bare procedural injury is where the disseminated information is inaccurate so a bare procedural violation may now not demonstrate concrete injury because one disseminated information regardless may be entirely accurate that that describes what happened here that second unattached page had a precise information required by the fair debt collection practices act or to the misinformation may be too trivial to cause harm or present any material risk of harm and we also have that circumstance here on our so on both counts this is a bare procedural violation detached from any real world actual injury the your honor just briefly on the article three issue i it's just beyond me why they won't concede that there's an overshadowing argument which strip which is actually from the statute in section sixty two g that include in their papers and they couldn't even say it now and that's clearly the type of informational injury that from article three standing it's just again i don't see how this could this first letter and how at that point in time they had the responsibility to to collect the debt because if they did then there'd be a payment coupon right they would want and very easy method for my client to have sent back payments so that's that point and then this issue of the windfall again that's just a complete complete misleading point about the fact case the facts of this case are we filed a complaint and several months later after we filed this class month of this class action complaint alleging f t c at the c p a violations serendipitously my client got a check maybe that's just good lawyer it's currently in his account we have told him i believe we've been structured it not to do anything with it until this litigation but again he got that check after we filed this f t c a complaint after the rawlings letter the only letter sent to him in this case was given to the february letter