ness of stablish is the the date of a crew for the cause of action the second case mangum apply as holes that there is a tolling exception under general rules it's a cruel date after all right that would not then there wouldn't be tolling at all it would just be the crow in order to establish an x the tolling exception of the discovery rule there has to be an earlier date which is then going to be told that's not conflicting it's barely a superficial conflict and it's hardly the irreconcilable conflict that would be required to create the problems the point when the court in nassau that we hold that the statue of limitations began to run the first moment when the when the distant venue case which is what we're talking in and if the c p of an unfair venue provision when the case is filed or when the case with the state collection case is final and this court held it's when it's filed when the communication occurred but the the tolling occurred until the the bill the consumer learned that her privacy was invaded and this is these are complimentary principles that have to apply in any or exception situation i guess that you would not one would not have a tolling if there was an earlier cruel so the fact there is an exception there is a tolling cannot be seen as conflicting with the earlier it has to be seen as  part of the normal course of developing case law if it is otherwise then you could never have the if you could never have an exception whether it's the actual imitation is tolling whether it's discovery rule equitable stoppel whatever there may be or any other exception if the first case that came before that established the principle was on point with the case it comes up later that's not the way our system works judges you know i don't the one year in this case whatever the statute may be that's the discovery rule the differential is that there is always going to be a difference there has to be a difference who wouldn't have the exception otherwise but no i i would i mention tolling because i rell could be i think it's holding principle but in any event when we think about this in terms of the of the jurisprudential chaos that would result if the case below were affirmed that a binding decision published opinion of this court noting holding an exception to a principle to a rule is or is automatically deemed to be in such conflict with the rule that we get that the courts are free to ignore the second the exception the second case that cannot be that's not the way our system works and of course i think what's important among many things is that in this case the defendants have not said they've abandoned the lower court position that there is a conflict they have made no attempt to rebut it they don't even address in their brief the fact that we're just what we're talking about here there is a rule there's an exception they are complimentary by definition there is that the defendant in this case has provided this court with no principle on which to firm there's no legal principle they've said that the mangum case is limited with facts that's basically their argument well that's not again talk about us prudential chaos that's not the cite for not for the consistency of what they were of of this rule of the discovery rule with the nash decision so the panel in mangum was well aware of the nasa pinion cited johnson versus riddle out of the ten specifically they said we are applying the general rule in the general discovery rule applicable to offset all statutes they used the word general couple times and that's really important because it would apply again the defendants are arguing that man and this is what we have and cited johnson versus riddle for the proposition that it is also consistent with nurse so i know this is the met the man you quote was saying this is a general proposition and i i but i believe them and good morning or honors may please the court my name is lisa the bow ski and i'm here with my co counsel christina ramtha and we reckon we represent the a pallies in this matter the decision of the district court should be affirmed for the following three reasons encompasses the f t c p a is inconsistent with the application of a broad discovery role third the application of the discovery rule is not necessary here because the doctrine of equitable tolling will solve all concerns that are raised in other circuits such as the tenth circuit in johnson limitations in these cases which address the the exact statute which is at issue which is the violation that is caused by filing a complaint in a different venue and the way that could work is in situations where a consumer for if a lawsuit is filed and the consumer is not properly named or served with the lawsuit and they fail to find out about it because of some later date then in those particular cases this court could use the doctrine of equitable tolling in order to is the consumer is never sued your honor that yes what actually it depends on if we if we go by the rule under now as in that case then the filing in and of itself would be a violation of the statute and so therefore the the filing of the initial superior court complaint against the defendant that would start the filing date for for the consumer to then file self can cause actual harm to a consumer and the reason could be that although well actually let me just it but we haven't yet whatever it is say discovery is right until you learn about the are you saying that that's a basis i am yasir i believe that what now is holds is that there is the violation stands from the statute of sixteen ninety two k d so the only way in your view that the plaintiffs in this case could prevail if we follow magnum mangum and apply the discovery rule to the statute is that right correct your honor yes i will now talking about why mangum applies instead of nasa in nasa as i rethought opinion the date of service was not an issue and in fact it didn't appear that the plaintiffs nasa even claymore our challenge if they were unaware the reason is because the court specifically stated and i quote we hold that the statute of limitations began to run on the filing of the complaint in the municipal court the court further stated that one of the reasons that it that the statute of limitations should run from the date of filing was because quote this is the debt collectors last opportunity to comply with the act and this is a date that is easily ascertainable now if if if the court believes that this that the prior panel made those statements that that the filing date is the debt collectors last opportunity to comply with the act then this court did address the would have no no your honor actually the facts in this case suggest that there is no justification for any equitable tolling or the application of the ruling was there contemporaneous service or there is there was service yes within she was personally served with a copy of the summons and complaint january fifteenth two thousand and twelve but your are very briefly the reason why it's important that the now as court did hold that the that the filing date is the debt collectors last opportunity to comply with the act this language in nouns is directly in contravention to the ten circuits language in johnson which holds that the last opportunity to comply with the act is actually the service of the complaint that is what the courts in the tenser get fined because they don't find that there is an actual violation that has been completed until service of the complaint that is in direct contravention to the holding of in but this is a just and i'm glad i don't have any well your honour's and the and and the way that i would address that is that this particular statute the statute of limitations which is sixteen ninety two k d the statute in itself states matter of fact how can that possibly be because the statute if you go from language of the statute then then you must hold that the statue of limitations in according with must run from the violation which is at issue which is that the violation that we are addressing here is the bringing of the action and so with the language under the plain language of the statute a consumer if they've been properly named and serve with the complains they have to if they have to file their at the c p a law claim within a year of the actual violation statute that language is inconsistent with a general discovery rule well that's exactly what many of them said is the rule in this if we were really arguing this case of men and didn't exist we could have this we could have this conversation mangum is the law of the circuit surely the five weeks that we had the five week delay here and interestingly why was it five weeks because they couldn't serve ms they couldn't serve ms lines up in northern california where they sued her in the desert because she did live in san diego they were able to learn in that five week period which recalls and lay that she no longer lived in the air in the venue in which she was served which itself is another issue about the last chance to comply why that would have been the time to not server when the process server couldn't find her up north and dismissed occasionally fall in san diego the finally and very quickly council just said that johnson conflicts with ness that's remarkable such a statement given that the exception a rule an exception we have the one circuit case that was expanded the time that that mangum was decided holding is there any equivalent rule nine to the supreme court ruled of presume constitutionality that you had to read something to be of consistent rather than inconsistent i judge will sarah like you i reside in the cancer kid i'm from new mexico i'm not that conversant with one circuit law that we have in briefs so i can't answer them but i assume so that would make sense of course we it is also consistent with the rule which does apply with these conflicts these questions of whether panel decisions conflict is we cited a believe it was a minnesota case district court case but the logic of it one is obligated to go out to to attempt to reconcile panel decisions we're not here to find superficial conflict and then say oh now we've got a problem with this system is based on a endeavoring to find consistency and there is nothing but consistency here with a rule and exceptions and and again i go no farther than decide what we said in our brief and the failure of the defense to contest it the tenth circuit itself saying that in johnson the rules are consistent and that i believe asean thank you very much