understand what you said my understanding and i understand the appeal to say did you file this appeal i did not i'm specially appearing on behalf of patricia rodriguez who was unexpectedly and able to be here today  appreciate your concern so clear up for me what's being appealed because it sounds like initially your distant p just appealing the motion to dismiss but when you look at the notice of appeal it says that your she said she's appealing the order dismissing the case with prejudice and the judgment of dismissal that was entered on january excuse me november twenty second two thousand and sixteen but when you look at the record based on the notice of appeal it seems like you're actually appealing the summary judgment order and not the dismissal order so which is it my reading of the brief your honor is that they're appealing four of the five causes of action that have you ever i mean if you understand the brief says certain things you believe you are have you ever taken any action with the clerk's office once a good court of appeal to be admitted to the bar i was admitted when i was a young attorney and ok federal court together with a group of people with the firm i was with it when it would happen it's happened just this morning with mr rodriguez i only got the brief this morning and i'm not sure exactly why she's not able to be here to it seems like a case of in return or seems directly on on point in this case and appears to foreclose this phrase argument that the transfer and violation of if i read it correctly they didn't address that klasky issue with regard to the issue of whether it's merely voidable here the claim that the action b the trustee was improper is based on the idea that the loan wasn't transferred to the trustee within the period of time set forth in the pooling and service agreement right and that's seems to be under turner the fence which the trustee can bring up but since the trustee under turner can after the period in which the object to that so under turner are we bound as good as to rule against you i appreciate the comment the court is making and i note that that is not addressed in the in the appellant's brief i would only note that my reading from what i've seen of even know about is that they concluded that there was standing when it was void and didn't address the glass key issue with regard to avoidable all right but were bound by turner no systems briefly i just want to point out that there are a number of reasons that the district court's judgment in this case was correct and should be affirmed the simplest approach for the court to take would be i think as the court has already indicated to follow the in return our case this case is is factually analogous to that case and really is is not distinguishable in any in any fashion you ask you about that doesn't it does not appear that in return early address the issue of an allegation of a section two nine two four stay six violations as it is directly on point well i think the perhaps procedural posture of that case was slightly different but i think the in this case the allegation as to the violation of that particular statute relied on the post closing date theory in other words the the appellant had claimed that that section was violated because the  the trustee my client could not prove that it on the loan because of the quote unquote void assignment so i think following turner would allow the court to dispose of that cause of action based on the legal theory but maybe not particularly because this statute was addressed in in in return and so it the court has indicated a familiarity with with enright turner and payne even though i would i would point out that the california court of appeal has rejected these types of allegations in the saturn back versus j p morgan case the mendoza versus j p morgan case and the q diverses impact funding case again these these cases really really make absolutely clear that implied common good faith and fair dealing survive to the extent it's predicated on your client's on ledged mishandling of raises loan modification application rather than any well i would i would point out that that the theory of the case is kind of changed as as time has gone on the issues that were presented on the motion to dismiss related only to this boy versus voidable distinction and that's what the upon his continue to claim in her opening brief so i thought at the outset i would say that those that type of argument has been waived but in response to the court's question i think the evidence presented on summary judgment shows that there was not actually any mishandling of the plaintiff's loan modification application the plaintiffs was actually offered multiple loan modifications accepted song turn some down the only modification that was denied was i believe in two thousand and fifteen but the service or complied with all the relevant statutes and case law and did everything that he needed to do provided all the information disclosures that it needs to provide that kind of delves into one of the other approaches that i wanted to know that the court could take in this case which is to just you know the court could sidestep this void vs voidable distinction entirely the post closing date theory entirely and just look at the individual causes of action briefly what the what the district court ruled in has not been challenged on appeal is that the first claim for wrongful foreclosure fail because there had not been a foreclosure sale the second and third claims for violation of california's judicial foreclosure statutes including the statute that that your honor just referenced failed because those statutes didn't even go into effect until after the conduct complained of the fourth claim for violation of california's unfair competition statute failed because the thought admitted that she did not lose money or property as a result of the complaint the conduct that was complained of and the fifth claim for breach of the contractual covenant of good faith and fair dealing failed because appellant didn't really a ege any conduct that frustrated her ability to recover under the long contract what the appellant was really concentrating on was the alleged on in force ability of the loan pursuant to a violation of an agreement that she was not a party to so if anything the conduct would have frustrated her ability to benefit under the pooling servicing agreement she's not a party to that agreement she's not intended their party beneficiary of that agreement and can't sue for its violation or for any  loan practices so to the extent the court is considering that issue the might highlight that that that portion of it is subject to the appeal and with that i submit really