case this is a case that centers on what we have claimed are unlawful actions in post judgment consumer collections each of the police is a debt collector subject to the f collection practices act the basic premise of the case is that the law firm at police here mary jane emily p c and burton associates p c included inflated judgment interest amounts in collection communications after judgments were entered those writs of garnishment and other tech election communications were issued on behalf of by the law firm apple is on behalf of their debt collector clients so all of those are defendants in this action what they did is they calculated post shows an interest at thirteen percent which was many times the statutory rate that's allowed under michigan law essentially cheating the interest rate to make a very profitable enterprise even more profitable we have brought to the if you're right about record feldman do you want us to address any of the other issues that are potentially  potentially jurisdictional i don't think so your honor i think it might be appropriate to reach those issues because obviously as you know the district court found that the district or lacked subject matter jurisdiction i don't know that we reach any of the other issues about the other ones that are jurisdictional like standing stand i'm fine with addressing standing because i think it's absolutely clear that there is standing here under this court's ruling in may see that's a case that we cited and relied upon our doctrine was dead i thought so too you're out especially after the exxon case worker feldman from the western district of michigan i'm just trying to figure this out i don't think so wasn't felt it was a d c case but no i agree your honor i think i think judge griffin has a good point why don't we hear from the other side and because obviously the time of briefing van helden had not come out so if you need more some of this time you'll get it but what i understand to be your position is you think you're right on record feldman you don't think we should address the other issues of though maybe a slight exception or asterisk if they're jurisdictional issues like standing on the other abstention point i think that you're agnostic about is i guess what i would hear you to be saying i think that's very fair to say you honor i think you're correct that so that some of these issues weren't even raised below the article three standing issue wasn't raised below but at the same time we're actually happy to have that article three stand that your limitations by contrast you think should be dealt with on remand if you're right about well explain why his clients will win anyway despite van hoven and mr sites would address the article three standing issues if it pleases the court and i think we just want to talk about record feldman for now point made it just says recommended it's actually not in the f rd i guess there's something to be said for it but it's another stroke time for you to change your mind anyway so let's start with the rocker which in which the court said a long i'll tell you i'll take my change my mind to hear where i'm coming from i think i underwrote it i think rick or feldman has no value in this your name is rick or feldman and i think that's what the u s supreme court means by asking for judgments to be reversed in other words you have to have a case where you are doing exactly what one thousand two hundred and fifty seven prohibits which is coming to federal court to undo a judgment of a state court and that of course is not what you're doing because here the cole claim is that that judgment violated a separate federal statute and your theory oddly enough is that the federal courts don't have jurisdiction over vindicating federal rights not raised in state court if you can't then you should just get up and say we can only get anywhere by in banking vann whole thing otherwise you have to answer that question straight up and i guess there are issues there were not discussed in the van ho decision which have been raised by the briefing in this case and which show why roker feldman does apply to a writ of garnishment which is the final determination by the michigan courts as to what the higher on the premise fan ho makes more sense for mr cook to discuss why his clients win despite van hoven think judge guy what do you think i agree with what you just said jack schatten ok should get to that there's not much we can do it's a different panel that's the way it works and it's going to be published ok may please the court michael cook on behalf of the defendant mary jane emily a p c getting straight to the point dan hogan doesn't apply to my clients because my argument doesn't hinge on whether or not the roots of gershman are judgments subject feldmann for my clients the judgment state the interest rate and says will earn interest at the statutory rape thirteen percent my clients applied that interest rate they never changed it that is the interest rate they applied so the plaintiff is arguing that my clients did something wrong they're arguing that the thirteen percent rate specifically stated in judgment is wrong and they're directly contesting that if the right i can of course that's the court judgment that's what they're effectively doing so exxon talks about state court that's not what they're doing ok can i explain this is really important to understand this yes they are not seeking to vacate those judgments those judgments are the premise of the whole cause of action that's how they can do a class action with those judgments in a very perverse way they're grateful for those judgments because it's those judgments that become the predicate for the violation of a federal law ok so that's what's very strange about bricker feldman here so go ahead with your response to that i understand your point judge it also ducktails into my stateroom titian's argument which i do want to get to but no but i do want to get i'm going to address your question st ok in terms of undoing the judgment which is what you just expressed that is exactly what these claims seek to do if they're right and i cannot and force this judgment i can't go out and send a written garnishment with a thirteen percent interest stated in it that is the what they're do they have that on their mind the effect of the judgment that's exactly the line exxon mobil is just like trying to keep trying to put it in brighter bigger words and forgive me but lawyers and judges keep not understanding what they're saying your honor in x some other words at the whim of a state court judgment that has reasoning logic precedence that has a very significant impact in other cases including in federal court and in that sense you're right they're using that judgment here but it's not right to say that the predicate of their claim is to vacate think of it as vacate so vacating the judgment i don't think rickard filament is limited to asking the federal district court to reverse kate the judgment is seeking to prevent enforcement of that judgment so here that's exactly what their claim does if i violate the it's a six circuit it's published as post x it stated in bar to claim when plaintiffs quote do not claim that the defendants have injured them in any way except by strictly executing those judgments that's my client's in this case that's fo seventy four dollars f rd at three hundred and twenty nine and under abbott under that entire line of cases the talk about the source of the injury being the judgment that's my client's the source of the injury been hoping they're putting in different things into the ritz and they're arguing the rich judgement subject to work or field and that is not my argument my argument is feldman applies to the state court judgments the say thirteen percent applies to the state court judge there's two explanations of this judgement the state court judgement are you seeking to have this judgement not enforceable that is exactly what plants are doing as to my clients and that's why i think that's why i think they're hoping to see happens out of curiosity had you know they had a chance under state law to challenge these writs and bring in this federal statute ok theoretically they take advantage of that and they say you wait you can't do this if you do this it violates this federal statu that i'm asking whether feldman problem if they go to federal court at that point if they go to federal court and that court has decided the thirteen percent interest rate is correct that's what applies in the they did in the court  entered that decision then yes they're going to have probably more specifically clinton stop will probably that they can go to federal district court well then i think they would have a fit or work or felt a promo that point to because they would have another state courts order saying this is thirteen percent these defendants comply with their to require feldman applies both when you have a pure state law and the judgment creates a problem and work or feldman applies when you have pure state law plus the federal claim brought into it that's your position n i'm happy to talk about the other jurisdictional ones there's i guess a stench in comedy and then there are those are my most my issues mr sites will address those issues with you so again i guess to conclude i encourage you to go back and read the a decision and give count contemplation to the fact that i'm not talking about the roots my revolver and arguments based on the state court judge and says thirteen percent my clients only applied the thirteen percent they didn't change the rate from state court judgement that's what makes them different i thank you thank you something half of the middle and ellys in this case and the issue that millen did raise in its briefs which was not addressed by the district court below was the issue of article three standing it was raised in front of it's judgment on the right judgment loney it was not raised if it was raised only here it was only raised here if it was raised down below and i don't have it for me it might have been raised in the midland motion to interest rate that was put on some of these garnishments so there's no injury as to the garnishments themselves on the interest rate and that's something that would go to and i know that there are some conflict with this the that that's correct your honor if the thirteen percent or whatever the garnish interest amount was was too high and it actually resulted in a garnishment were amounts were taken that were above the judgment or in excess of what they should be held since the speculative so what i hear you saying isn't bright line rule if you didn't actually pay the higher amount and tell you pay no standing the put that to the side bracket that what are the ways is it speculative that the plaintiffs are going to eventually pay a higher rate than they should have under their theory of the case one dollar of the guards would have to would so so it could be imminent but because now because of the lawsuit because there was no objection down below to the to the ritz there was never an amount recovered with that extra interest and not built into it their clear claims under six thousand and ninety two e as well which is it is almost like a misrepresentation standard and they also allege in their brief i think for the st time because i wasn't raised below that their injury is not only that but stress and anxiety because of this which this court recently rejected as a standing argument for injury in the book is case judge god you have any other questions i do not i think we're i think thank you thank you so i mr westbrook helpful that that discussion sort of takes us around the other issues somewhat so i certainly don't have any objection to this panel determining the article three standing issue i think that's sort of a natural one even though it really wasn't raised below if it's jurisdictional we might as well deal with it rather than maybe bounce back and forth so first of all i think that as you  there's other other situations there are facts here or application of fact to law here that also would make ricker feldman and it applicable even if we ignore that threshold  brought against debt collectors for their own misconduct there it's not trying to overturn or vacate the judgments it's going after persons independent of the state court  is there some aspect of the state court being talked about record feldman do you have a response to the case he relied on the average case i don't i don't have that with me on it wasn't explicated just gotten up here and said i'm good to go but one thing i want to get to before we leave rick or feldman is what are the district court or one of the state court judgments that are being relied upon feldman by mary jane and elliott which had thirteen percent interest in their default judgments that they filed in the state courts well st of all i think it's it's very questionable whether those default judgments are judgments to which recur feldmann could apply in any event because as the court stated it's vent hope and opinion record feldmann judgments judgments to which the record feldman doctrine can apply have to investigate declare and in force liabilities based on application of law to fact that doesn't happen with state court default judgments in the state of michigan clerk stamps the judgments they're not reviewed by any court they're actually served on the i mean it seems a little unfair because i said to the st to pounce lawyer that we weren't going to go through all the van hope and stuff and he kind the got the hint and you're using your bottle to go through all that and hope and stuff and it seems i don't want to say anything more you're getting what i'm saying i understand your honor i have a good thank you judge guy do you have any questions but thank you ok thanks to all four of you we grateful for your written briefs and arguments thank you so much thank you