district in the to her versus r g s case addressed under the court's recent this court's recent decisions the question of standing on what appears to be a virtually identical case the allegation make a decision in response and if so what do you do in the debtor needs to know how much they owe and to whom because they must decide to do something about the debt sheffield retain a lawyer among other things so knowing the identity of the creditor and whether that creditor in fact exists is like knowing how much one is central to a consumer being able to intelligently respond to an effort to collect a debt without that but that raises the question you seem properly identified entity someone on the right is to collect do they have an assignment illinois has a specific assignment requirements under certain the reasonable value medically necessary services it isn't likely on the other hand if what we're dealing with is a misnomer mis description of in a regional creditor then it isn't  she would have been able to successfully persuade a prospective employer to give her a job and any it was sufficient that the plaintiff be deprived of the opportunity to review the background check report for  make a decision about her and to address the matter with the prospective employer if she wished to in the subsequent crim treated she shouldn't crabtree versus experience this court described robertson as holding that the plaintiffs have watched the benefit of her interest in the standing to information in her background reports even if the information was accurate and she would have been unable to convince the without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction i'm is markos failed to allege facts supporting her article three standing despite having three opportunities to violate complaint and despite having the opportunity to submit a declaration asserting the factual basis for her standing the sole basis that ms marcos advances here for her standing is a purported informationally three she would have taken some different action then she took it met a credit standing likewise her declarations did not describe what she would have done differently if anything had she received a complete and accurate information rather she alleged only that she was confused aggravated and harassed ms marcos therefore did not show to the district court that she had standing as court addressed in gun versus thrasher that annoyance and intimidation do not create an injury in back sufficient to afford standing court's opinion in the brain that case similarly holds that confusion or the engagement of counsel as a result of confusion doesn't create an injury in fact deficient to afford standing to an f t p a plaintive that leaves the informational injury and this court addressed that issue in both the busywork case that my opponent mentioned and insular versus state collection services and the court correctly held that the failure of a debt collector to furnish information required under the f t c p a create standing only and this is a quotation only if it impairs the plaintiff's ability to use that information for a substantive artists with the statute and vision so this court has said that it is necessary for an omission of information for a mistake and information to impair the plaintiff's ability to do something that she would have done something differently or could have done something differently had she had correct information not school or came to the court following a summary judgment so it's a little bit different but the same result and the court observed that the plane to fail to advance any reason that the debt collectors failure to furnish information because the record contains no evidence mid of information quote and any effect on how the schoolers responded to the letters are manage their factual challenge on standing and the interest there was the issue there was whether in fact interest was accruing on the death the collectors said no and the plaintiff said yes and the court reasons that while it may be the case that the debtor was harmed as a result of the omission of the fact that that was accruing if in fact she might have prioritized other that she might have prioritized this the fact was that she might have done something differently now in that case there is a real man for factual development because the record was underdeveloped this case is different because the factual record is not under mismarked aco has had the opportunity and she took the opportunity to submit a declaration laying standing alone is insufficient to c so she had the opportunity she took the opportunity she still failed to show that she had standing and i know parent that equally you know the district court was permitted to dispense with a formal evidentiary hearing on that factual question under rule forty three c the district court was permitted to accept evidence on the affidavits and resolve the motion in that way there was hearing there was no request so this is not like the deal where there was an underdeveloped factual record here we had a an athlete developed factual record where his markakis had a full opportunity to present her basis  standing and she failed to furnish a proper basis or standard and that's leaving aside a separate question that i think is equally important and i don't want to get lost in the zeal the court we're not dealing with a situation where you know there's a question about whether interest was accruing or something like that we're not dealing with a question of whether she may have prioritized other debts certainly she did not say this that she doesn't allege she paid  of adequacy of care i suspect that she would not have and the allegations of the complaint with the annex exhibits do not permit an inference otherwise but what's more her alternate course of action has been suggested is that she would have ignored the letter and there's been nothing identified to explain how ms marco's was worse off for having to having responded to the letter and for having invoked her rights under the f e c to require the collector to stop collection then she would have been had she simply ignored the law so this is not a situation where the complaint admits of a proper inference of harm this is not like say love valley where in that case you know the plaintiff was engaged in litigation with the debt collector liberal amendment of the feedings and that's all true and that's all correct but i think it's important to bear in mind that when the district court disposed of this case the district court was already on the rd iteration of the complaint and  it's not appropriate in the district court would be perfectly correct to dip lines to permit further amendments there's no need for three bites of the apple to do to assert a proper claim and to show the existence of standing particularly where as here there's actually been a th opportunity in the form of a declaration that's too much it's too much these cases i don't want to suggest that they're not important cases certainly they are they mean a lot to the people who bring them i understand that but these are relatively simple cases that don't warrant three complaints and a declaration to show something so fundamental as the right to access in our article three courts unless the court has questions on the standing issue i will turn only briefly to the merits because in my view the standing issue is clear and it's it's  subject matter jurisdiction on the creditor identification claim mismarked acos number allege that the identified creditor wasn't her current creditor and that's absolutely what's required to show that there was a violation of the obligation to disclose the identity of the current creditor just she just didn't do it she said she couldn't find the creditor but there's no requirement and yet the c p a or otherwise that said that the creditor be  domiciled in her home state the fact of the matter is it may or may not be so so that that that allegation was simply insufficient she needed to allege i don't want to dwell on them too much but among the issues she never alleged which if either of the statements was wrong she never alleged that the difference was material she never alleged that a competent lawyer would have been misled among other and i'm talking about the merits here not necessarily standing it wouldn't matter to bet if if medic credit had told her she owed one dollar or a one million dollars she would have disputed the debt either way and i'd only doing so she could have and did secure the s e c p a state that it was without prejudice the judgment though clearly and i think in that respect the district court's disposition is sufficiently clear that no remand is required on that issue but if the if this court disagrees  and considers there to be any ambiguity in how the district court disposed of this case whether it's with prejudice or without prejudice we don't object to a limited remounted solely for the purpose of clarifying that the dismissal was without prejudice different tuning and there is not and there's no question that you had to make a decision about what to do with the defense based imperfect information