attorneys fannie mae guidelines which barclays witnesses repeatedly said they had to comply with california statutes and amounts barclays was actually charged by its own attorneys after five years of litigation however lower court dismissed appellants complaint without ever addressing the substance of any of these charges as shown in our papers we respect we believe this is a proper turning st to the motion to dismiss notwithstanding the fact that barclays motion to dismiss the claims under california's unfair competition law consisted of exactly twelve words and said nothing about the unfair unlawful prongs of the statu the court dismissed those claims in their entirety barkley's twelve word argument completely fail to meet its burden on its will be six motion moreover the court failed to provide any explanation not may have conferred that the u c l fraud claim could be dismissed for the scene reasons it dismissed the rico claim that would itself have been our as california courts in the th circuit have made clear the fraud fee shifting clause and if this court said in crescent publishing the actual billing arrangement between the litigant and its lawyer was quote a significant factor in determining what c is reasonable unquote d under a fee shipping clause in fact as we showed california courts of regularly found that the attorneys fees specified in the retainer agreement are a ceiling on what can be charged to an opposing party in litigation it's no wonder therefore that a federal court in massachusetts found that a little can still year to disclose the limitations of a retainer agreement is plainly fraudulent turning to the motion for summary judgment in opposition to summary its attorneys in the complaint in reaching this conclusion lower court record pleading at a level of specificity that was not justified by tom to quote this court's finding and out in an ideal  still st each of the challenge charges were specifically identified in the seventy three dollars page three hundred forty six dollars paragraph complaint along with the reasons why they were believed to both improper as both this court and the supreme court even if the allegations but complaint had been insufficient appellants answers to barclays and to robert tories identified exactly why these charges were improper are you telling the relevant statutes and legal theories in refusing to even look at the derogatory the court ignored hundreds of cases in which this and other courts rely on into raga tori's to determine whether claims were properly raised finally even if the complaint and the derogatory had not provided requote still to proceed gaps in the complaint unquote to quote this court turning to the unjust enrichment claims court dismissed young trust in richmond claims based on the alleged over charges on two grounds st because the un just because i'm just enrichment is reportedly barred in california where there is a contract covering the subject even when the contract is with another party and nd because the evidence se and missing dozens of pages moreover even if it was properly raise been admissible the fact that bart or at least was contracts really required to pass on purported fees and expenses collected from borrowers provides no evidence that are divided by that requirement much less that it did so in the case of the fees and expenses collected from the appellant obviously the existence of the contract provides no proof of its performance now a you or please claims that it is absurd that it should be required to show that it actually paid the fees and expenses issue to its attorneys however that is precisely what litigants are universally required to do to get a unit reimbursed for even if there was such evidence california law is clear that the statute of limitations on a cause of action does not begin to run until the plaintiff suspects or should suspect that is injury was caused by wrongdoing did not even attempt to show that mr grimes knew or should have known that imposition of the late fees that they never told him about might have been improper i preserve two minutes your rogers thank you qualls and california cases and three of the descent plaintiffs your from california california cases regularly find that the attorney's fees specified in the retainer agreement are a ceiling on what can be charged to an opposing party in litigation so as we set the massachusetts court when presented with this identical issue of a party attempting to charge attorneys fees in excess of the amounts in the retainer agreement that had the court found this federal court found that it was acting plainly fraudulent lee and i believe sanctioned them in excess of one hundred and forty thousand dollars the idea that this only involves you know these three or four people this is a practice as we've shown they are routinely charging more they don't dispute and there are tens and tens of thousands equal we've looked at and mr turner says nothing about the court's decisions in ideal steel and d in the collar case which says that after discovery you have to look at the record i'd ask you to respond to mr turner's point which is i think one point i guess it was in the summary judgment briefing there's an assumption the part of you or your client that barclays actually paid these overcharges to its attorneys on top sources and others that they didn't i don't have i think it's extremely deceptive to say and we mentioned the critics to say that we assumed what we said and the air opposition to summary judgment is that for the purposes of summary judgment we will assume that these were paid although there's nothing in the record to indicate that they were there is nothing in the way of what is in there in the record to suggest that they did retain these over charges which would be necessary for an unjust enrichment well there are there are several things your honor number one the burden of proof is not on not asked to prove that that they  that they didn't pay their return on the burden of proof just answer my question what in the record is there that supports a finding that there was a retention of the over charges there is no evidence in either case and i said to the your honor as we said in our papers we specifically requested that they provide us with info i says showing the services as well as any checks or anything else showing the payment  as as barclays pointed out we're not into position we don't have that information this is a question of whether they pay their attorneys or are these charges that they let be against us that's not information that we can get other than from them we specifically asked for that they provided nothing there's no indication of payment that's something that is routinely required your honor when a under the california u c l these fees were on reasonable because they exceed the network agreements right they d were on the reasonable they also violated yes they were under reasonable i question  fees because they exceed the contract terms makes them on lawful correct no well what d we're saying is that california yes they see that the contract terms in the retainer agreement and california case law says that they cannot exceed the terms in retainer agreement california law prohibits what they have done so not only is that unlawful it's also deceptive and unfair but i might add i started that my next question then is did you make that argument below to judge kotler before a motion for reconsideration did you make that argument in the complaint to your make in the opposition to the motion i believe your honor that we did make that argument  yes and it wasn't it wasn't the idea that this wasn't an argument that was raised by the descendants in their in their papers as we indicated  t motion to dismiss consisted of twelve words specifically applying to the u c l plan but yes we definitely made that argument we argued and the complaints that that it violates each aspect of it and if you see and if you look at our summary judgment papers are summary judgment papers said that each of these things specifically charging more than what was allowed in the retainer agreement is both unlawful problem because it was the contract was that there was no privity here you also talked about the the nature of these fees which is just a few one hundred dollars but there is an allegation of paragraph two hundred and sixteen dollars about five thousand dollars in legal fees  and that does sound like a lot of money and i guess i'd ask you to respond to that and see what am i missing there why is that not an unreasonable fee that could rise to the level of being a law