the letter i'll get into it next but the letter was sent it contains numerous false and misleading information it was sent three days after the trial again to the wrong address that just being one of the one of the false information somehow precluded all dance subsequent if the c p a claims and then of course unreasonable refuse to exercise supplemental jurisdiction where it was proper and then it is for the court to exercise over not a part of this case but that's the reason why he called drexel collections on may twenty first was doug meeting right so it was supposed to have a meeting we're supposed to have a meeting i mean never occurred to these other obligations because  but that may not have resulted totally under the fair debt collection practices act but that also wasn't essential it wasn't essential to the judgment below because the court opened the default so i mean isn't that the the bail problem with court we want to pursue we were not allowed any depositions any there was some discovery did was exchanged so we know that there was a admission by drexel that they have his correct address and certain there's a court address that you just gave us three claims under the fair debt collection practices act the district court address all of these or i know they did they boil them down in essence but did it ignore a couple of these yes p a and that as for the third claim you say they continue to cling to the default what does that have ok well get it just a court address that no no this record did not address that and  material because it me in order for him to get relief from the judgment he has to find the case in the docket system and if he types in the information from the latter the result is zero zero records know that inclusion the way to wish him isn't really a name of a party well it's he may not have known but whether belief sophisticated consumer would know is what we're concerned here and we believe that there's issues there that the district  and that could be se which is the case here but it could also be lp d t i mean even the more savvy consumer and let alone the physical consumer would have a hard time knowing it could it could apply to any one of those le however they receive notice clear notice that some of the information that they were relying on may have been inaccurate they can't continue to blindly rely on their initial information in trying to collect  so that's exactly what they did here and it's even worse than in the case and you're done because in utah the correct information didn't come about until the late notice from the credit fact as to the letter in the footnote at the end regarding of the fact that there was nothing deceptive or misleading in the letter of course expressly states that directly addresses for example the fact that this of the amount determination is conclusive between the parties in the subsequent action only different cause of action happened fact essential to judgment how's that because because when you boil down exactly what occurred here  you have a separate elements of how do you get to the judgement right at the end of the day the judgment that's decided by the municipal court binding was made so you have to get a party into court it's required there needs to be service they need to be properly in court they do p r the hearing goes on and a judgment is rendered in this particular case and it's important to never talk about a subject pick a beautiful judgment right find out that this is the wrong address or that that was improper service or that it was no intentional and that was the that was the focus of that inquiry the fight that council argues that there had to be two hearings for example didn't have to be two hearings if you look at the transcript going to be hearing the trial judge expected that trial to take place right then and there it was plaintiff's counsel who said i'm not ready to proceed plaintiff meaning the plaintiff in this case the to the court was flabbergasted saying to everybody knows this part of our process and procedure here that when you move to vacate the default judgment you be prepared to proceed at that point in time  was a part of the process that concluded with the judgment the court at no time said oh i think you mean it wasn't properly before the court under the original service a process that was the answer no was the may eleven ruling that vacated the default judgment a final judgment on the merits for collateral softball purposes yes or no and then you can explain further if you preclusion yes because because the court had to decide the issue of whether the plaintiff was properly before the court in service a process if you don't have proper service a process you don't have somebody before the court your personal jurisdiction are you calling so they if they had properly been there they couldn't have done anything in that correct at that point trachsel would have had to research the complaint they would have had to start over and that's not what the court said and that's not what was decided the argument focused on whether the conduct by drexler j scott watson in the address service was intentional misleading what would be the cornerstone of the finding essential to the judgment means a finding that had to be made from a procedural standpoint without which the judgment could have been  to actual trial on the merits and a judgment entered there was no interruption yappin but the finding i mean i think you're using the word essential it's something different from the way it talked about in the collateral cares collateral stop of jurisprudence it has to be essential because you're a stopped visa be that fact because it was essential to the judgement as compared to well it had to have happened before you enter judgement such a service a process that would be towards the worker fell be an incomplete for issue preclusion the issue itself had to be part and parcel of the decision making process by that court the part and parcel process of that understand of the fair debt collection practices act you would have to have the sect of misleading conduct the court determined at that point in time in a finding while not finding specifically as to the fair debt collection practices that made underlying factual findings that there was no where the district judge said that they have a requirement in order to get precludes of affect them must be a decision that is essential to the prior judgment there was he lays out the requirements for issue preclusion and where does he say that you have a requirement in order to receive because of effect an issue must have been essential to the prior judge but i could find it conduct and activity of the service of process whether there was intent which you must have been the jewels of the prior judgment the issue was actually litigated in the first action which it was and last final judgment in the specific issue in question was issued in the first action which again the court did it issued its determination that in fact the conduct was not improper and proceeded to hold a hearing on the service of process now if there had been an issue related to the political of the service of process as to the determination by the municipal court judge that needed to be taken up on appeal to the court accomplis under the process and by plaintive not perfecting the appeal properly is for clothes from now arguing what is essentially an appeal of the majesty of the the the blissful court's decision that service a process alternately was proper and that the plaintiff with properly within the jurisdiction for personal service of the court to hold that hearing that was a there was a continuous line the only thing that gets vacated is the entry of the judgment and the history of the case of it is if you look through the hearing of that you see that the plaintiff received numerous letters all of which were not returned the only thing that ever came back was when they were served with a copy of the complaint which was sent certified and regular mail it came back unclaimed but all of the regular mail proceeded as two to all these issues know the march thirty first letters mailed on march thirty first twenty seventeen talks about the entry of the default judgment we hear testimony about confusion or anything like that so the letter gets mailed it gets put not less than seven days later he shows up a motion on the docket to vacate the default judgment appears so it takes two or three days for that piece of correspondence to actually make it to that address so probably in less than five days his counsel files on this docket that so confusing that you can't find five days later a fully briefed motion to vacate the default judgment appears so if the facts of the case don't correspond to the arguments that are being made by counsel anyways or are you to put the facts are on your side but we're talking about that the district court leave out a requirement in order to apply collateral no the district court did not leave out because all of these elements are set forth in this process and i have to ask you where did the district court say that there was a finding made in the earlier action that was essential to judgment and i said the allegation of improper honor is it said it doesn't use the word essential but the remaining language surrounding this entire description in the paragraph all support the concept so the words themselves may not have been used after sadia stopped it had to be essential to the judgment otherwise you're you're not going to apply collateral stop which is central to the  isn't the judgment of it's essential in two respects it's essential to the determination of whether or not someone did something improper that's number one at a very discreet level a more global level the judgment was that that the follow up should be opened by us but the court decided the judgement will be over the default judge will be open and central to that could have been any one of a number of things that the court found that were essential to that but its determination regarding the intentionality or not the service is not essential to the fact that as a result of that we need to open the judgment maybe the right thing by the way as the court of the options i mean you know this circuit is clearly set in decisions on granting default judgments and other things that the preference is to holding hearings on the merits rather than doing it in those fashion that doesn't make natural service president to the default judgment defective it's really hard to say that you get issue preclusion effect on this type of decision by a court in the court and two to attack the service of process after a full hearing and a judgment by a municipal court judge would require that service  process the question as to the validity of the service of process to have been taken up in an appellate proceeding through the philadelphia state court system not by appealing the decision of the municipal court judge that in essence the process was proper the plaintiff was properly had personal service and was properly in front of the court based on that service of process any infirmity or defect of this with regard to that would have had to be taken up by that it is not to go up through the federal court system to challenge that you know into into a degree that's where the worker felt the doctor would would pop in which is why we argued at the summary judgment level both roca feldman as to all claims so if those elements are all there that's the plaintiff's remedy the plaintiff didn't do didn't affect its remedy you can't then go to federal court and seek to undo what was done when clearly the judgment itself is valid and is properly in the court thank you very much thank you  judge made no findings of fact or law based on the f t c so that's the essential issue here is the issue that was litigated we respect the service in municipal court really the same issue that one of law which this is and two actually will claim there are substantially unrelated so that's the restatement second of judgements that would even excluded even if the court would work to find a