we'll hear the next case jackson versus wells fargo applying for being approved for refinances that for some reason or another never made it to the closing table miss jackson alleges in her pro se complaint that she was an african american woman  said she alleges she was discreetly treated i'm not sure she does actually ledge that she was discriminated against on the basis of her race but she doesn't explain that others who were of a different race were treated differently  your honor as well compared or well judge there is in unfortunately in the rather dense materials that were submitted to the court and are presented in the pleadings in some of the handwritten writings of the pro s amended complaint she does a ledge that she appeared at the dream two or there was hope that was given by the f h a in which other people appeared with their paperwork to receive this refinancing and were given a decision on the spot and that when reviewing a pro se pleading but that she discussed the race of those people i don't believe that actually i mean i am says that everyone standing in line at this dream tour which is probably a couple of one hundred people were all black or white or hispanic that the pleading does not go into such detail however your honor this is where i think the real problem is with the analysis of this case mr jackson looks at this case as one falling under the boy standard which doesn't necessarily require that a prime offish a case be pled but only that the grounds upon which the claims exist be alleged to give the defendant fair  plaint that everyone who reviewed her application to have authority over her was white and you think that's enough to use that because they were race different than hers we should presume some racial anim honor i do believe that in this case the totality of the circumstances coupled with someone must tell us what the evidence is what is the not the evidence what are the allegations that show a discriminatory model nords even assuming the wrong standard is applied under the correct standard what are the allegations as to a discriminatory motive so part of it was they were all white she was black is there anything more than that she ledges th but she also alleges that they were redlining her in her neighborhood they had the total picture of her socioeconomic background through her applications that were run as well as the fact that she had a a somewhat modest amount left on her loan to refinancing at three hundred and sixty thousand dollars versus a house value of over a one million at least and she alleges that as a single black woman whose name was on the deed alone and had lived in her home for many years and the chris she was black and because she'd been approved twice that that is the basis for the racial discrimination coupled with the facts that were stated earlier i understand that the court would like to see you know some perhaps conclusory factual allegations like wells fargo gave similarly court look at what the evidence was that race was a motivating factor the district court looked at the prom aphasia elements of the case and found that the proce pleading missed or did not adequately a ver the nd and th elements of the i guess it was the f h a allegation and the district court did air when it relied upon the july nd two thousand and fourteen reconciliation letter which wells fargo selfserving lee states she didn't qualify for the loans now that that was an error in two different areas number one the law is that you cannot read submissions of pro se plaintiffs or parties against them their own arguments but also wells fargo's letter that she didn't qualify was belied by the fact that she was in fact approved for these two loans the st one was erroneous lee cancelled some two years after it was applied for and that i think is a major problem this court the trial court went too far in finding facts that it should not have considered were just considered them or were interpret them incorrectly the plausibility standard that was facts that were were not there i mean i i think you're right that the district court made a couple of errors the question is applying the correct standard is there and off in the complaint from which one can a discriminatory judge i absolutely believe there is and again we're looking at the possibility factor which is in you know beyond a reasonable doubt it's a somewhat lower standard which your honour's are aware of but the complaint says they redlined me they tried to steal my  home they basically in essence did i mean because i'm black and i'm a woman and i'm a single black woman on it that's sort of a subjective assertion right and one of the facts alleged the race of the people deciding that that's that's a fact alleged there's sort of a vague reference to red lining but there's there's not much else is there there's not extraordinarily more but again at the pleading stage should be under a lesser standard is what was you know discussed by the court there's enough there to give notice to the defendants about what it is that we're complaining about the defendants can read the complaint and understand that they're complaining that we red lined the defendant good morning your honor smith please the court andrew city read smith for the defendant happily wells fargo bank so we've got a plausibility standard here and on one side you've basically got formulaic recitations of the elements by ms jackson and that she's an african american woman who was denied these refinances or modifications but what palin is ignoring is all the other facts that were introduced by ms jackson both essentially as admissions in her amended putting and in opposition to the magistrate judge's report and the documents that she annex is that refute any claim of qualification that at one qualification show that her application had been granted so you are so there's conflicting information in the the long arm he alleged by saying nothing more than i was qualified which was not at this record except that particular one there were some documents showing that indeed her application think there is a factual question because you don't have anything to support the qualification for two thousand and twelve has to be measured and why didn't she get the loan there's no question that she got a commitment the commitment is not a contract it says there are contingencies they told her contemporaneously it turns out that you don't have the money to close there's a default under this loan you can't be in default years there's a six thousand dollars problem with the rest grow count and wait charges and she never says she never denies she was told that and she never claims that she had the ability to make that payment that's the two thousand and twelve qualification two thousand and thirteen is a hat modification that modification thirty one percent not going beyond twenty six motion this argument that you're making she's intrade she's there's nothing more than a formulaic recitation of qualification she's introducing these facts defendant didn't introduce these facts the point of did and they disprove her formulaic recitation of qualification she says herself i was my my ratio wasn't thirty one percent or forty percent it was ninety eight percent that's in her opposition to the report recommendation when she appointed the streamlined modification which has very limited documentation she's saying at a five point seven eight percent interest rate that  ninety eight percent of her gross income the hemp modification actually looks at your financial ability and it's edge you can't afford to sow she admits that they contemporaneously told her you can't afford this house we can't make this work at thirty one percent we can't make this work at forty percent she doesn't say that wasn't my correct income she put that information in there as to what her gross at what they told her gross income was she didn't say that was mistaken how could she be qualified with a gross income of two thousand nine hundred dollars she's saying i could not afford this so i think the district court was correct in finding that she was not qualified in the information that she attached to her pleadings i mean essentially you've had two shots in amending because there's a complaint there's an amended putting and then there are new facts introduced by a appellant in up was in opposition to the referee's report but the facts just keep getting worse in terms of qualification and the courts correct she never says that similar situated people outside the protected class were treated differently even the allegation about the javits center is specific to her ability again even if she knew what the people were being everybody else there was being told somehow she's saying everyone else now people outside my protected class she saying everyone else was treated differently than i think she is if you read it literally she's saying that people in her neighborhood poor people african americans redlining issues i mean if you really wanted to read it liberally you would add those those facts into the mix but the red whining allegation is really nothing more than using the word redlining and it actually contradicted by some of her other allegations where she's saying well if she's she's being treated differently because this is a poor neighborhood while at the same time saying her house is worth an enormous amount of money and they're trying to steal the equity that seems sort of inconsistent with preying on poor people at the district court consider the issue of what evidence there was of race as a motivating factor as opposed to she failed to allege the nd and th elements of the proficient case she wasn't qualified she didn't alleges she was qualified did district court reach the question of the allegations of racism  it seems as though the district court concluded that that was a higher standard than under the f h a claim and on the facts pled discrimination simply wasn't  just turning back to the statue limitations point with respect to the f h a claim it seems pretty clear that there's no can to new is course of conduct then you've got three discrete events and so at least for f h a purposes and fourteen woen would fall outside that claim on weren't there continuing discussions about that st loan that went on for a while as to whether she was going to get it i mean the final decision isn't really made until and fourteen isn't that true no that's not your honor she says the bank told her the bank says that they told her in august two thousand and twelve she says the bank told her she was denied in september tw she continued to communicate writing letters to wells fargo and did not receive official notice that her two thousand and twelve application have been to nine until two thousand and fourteen she also says she was told in september twenty i don't think that that's in any way accurate i think that's just her misunderstanding of what's going on what happened in two thousand and fourteen is a geisha and they're telling her that her allegation it's unclear that that's her allegation ok except as in her appellants reply brief below she seems to be saying they told me i was denied they say i was denied in august they told me in person i was denied or a phone call they thought i was night september i reappointed two thousand and thirteen for a different kind of maad then in two thousand and fourteen they send a letter basically saying we should have checked your financials more closely here's our apology please reapply and fourteen stating my closing date was november st yesterday i spoke to shawn henry last week and he said i was not approved such contradictory information proof that she got the loan there was apparently a closing schedule but they never notified her in a timely fashion so that she could actually go to the closing and with respect to the statute of limitations issue this is been and this was an ongoing controversy  does contrast one case from this court that said that separate loan applications for refine and singer mortgages are separate and distinct events where one lo denied in the new go and apply for a different one however a plane or ms jackson could not know of this could not be aware of the disparate treatment she was receiving until this day of the weight of the facts and evidence just came piling down on her i believe in the factual issues fact that there are factual issues with respect to when there was official notification that the loan was cancelled with a reconciliation letter which finally the bank sort of gave her some explanation for the events of the last two years i was in fact that they are not the issue that there is facts enough mean this has to go to discovery to find out when the statute of limitations told her didn't told her when they ran or didn't run i think that covers that issue with respect to statute of