the plaintiff was hired by p r a health services she received sign on bonus as part of her compensation package that she would only need to repay if she worked for p r a more than two years she was as an issue did i miss it somewhere no party raised that as an issue here on can you help me with it or i want to say i did not explore that aspect of the case with my client because it claimed the money was owed defendant would find the planet did not have standing in the reason i don't believe standing existing is because as this court has been ruling consistently with its recent cases is that even if there was a technical violation here there was no harm she didn't pay the sign and sign on bonus whether she owned it or not under the contract she didn't pay it out of hearing for collection activity she didn't fear of being coerced or anything like that so she had no loss there was no underlyin lawsuit that was brought against her forcing her to hire a defense attorney or to depose her i don't see in any way that she was harmed that would give grounds for standing then you know we look simply at the pleadings but in this case there was no there was no evidence as to what harm that plaintiff would have would have suffered i believe she probably ok well it wasn't stress or something i'd have to quickly look at the pleading and i apologize i don't have that right in front of me but i can i can redress that if you like on my rebuttal that's fine thank you so the district court go to t after finding that debts on the vs the c p a said that the defendant was a debt collector because that debt was in default immediately upon being placed upon the immediately become immediately upon becoming o which may be defended that collector and the of the c p a and such a conclusion is completely inconsistent with the language of the statute and the previous decisions of this court in other circuits going to move to the st the  consumer it's it is an obligation of a consumer arising out of a transaction a consumer transaction here to pay money or property or insurance if it's based on  transactions that are primarily for personal family or household purposes so when you're just what's a transaction will this court in best to find a transaction as one where the obligation to pay had to arise from both a consensual transaction which we have here but also where the parties negotiated or contracted to have a consumer related or service and that's completely absent here what we have is an employer giving employment this is not alone alone where two parties you know there's a borrower a lender and the borrower gives money in the lender gets the money in both parties expect that money to be repaid a contingency bonus  is different in fact it's very different in that there's two parties one party gives money to the other and no and neither party really expects that money to come back in fact not a party once that that money to come back because if the employee that's not considered a can say consider a loan by the employer's consider a way of compensating that sales person while the sales person is selling the product and two cases that are really instructive on this are thompson be diversified adjustment services and the server server versus mccarthy and wolf ironically these are two very these are excellent cases for the defense but they were cited by the district court in support of a district court's opinion what it when it comes to thompson thompson was a case where the district court found that there was a loan given from the employer to the consumer and the district court says that's just like this case but the case was very different from this one in fact the next case that the court could make a determination as to whether was a loan because the underlying contract employment contract said that as part of the compensation was a commission a sales commission and in addition to the sales commission the employee would have an option to get a loan from the employer from time to time but it was completely different i mean it was  between those two and the server case similar type of facts shows that even better there we have sales commissions where the money is what's going to charge back or clawed back if for some reason the underlying policy is  because that was part of commission that was given even though there was a potential it needed to come back just like a side on bonus free money in as a potential that might be paid back that the possibility that you might have to pay back doesn't erase the fact that it's part of an employment compensation package and it's a commercial transaction under the f t c p a the court the courts seem to want to call this a loan and they try to find a way to cases the kind of support but it's did this or quirk started with a false a false promise it's stated that there was a consensual agreement between the parties which was true but the district court said that that agreement was for personal service in exchange for a per in exchange for money that would be used for of a personal reason for medical expenses and that's what happened a personal service it doesn't mean an individual acts in a personal service is it when you act on behalf of your company she was hired as a as a clinical as a clinical manager and that's not that's a personal service that's a service on behalf of your employer she wasn't moan someone's lawn she wasn't volunteering her time in a daycare or you know shelter that would be personal service this was an employment relationship and in the money that she was given you know what she decided to do with that money because it was a personal she decided he was going to use it for medical or household purposes doesn't take what is starts adds doesn't there's a change it starts as a as a commercial transaction and turn it into a person transaction in miller miller the mccullough just started to discuss this there's been this court case it states that you can't take it it was opposite though it's and you can't take it personal and then change it into a business of the same concept  you look at the time of the transaction or know or know of the mccullough stated and at the time of the transaction if it was a business commercial this commercial business transaction if you c p a doesn't apply and that's what happened in this case turning now to the it says that it's different so we have to look at the record to see what you know when this debt was in the fall the district court said the record in support of inclusion but then this report made a conclusion anyway in the judge said she did it because as a matter of law she was permitted to do so because it was a legal it was a legal legal question and while it is a legal question if there is not enough information to make it even of legal or factual no conclusions should have been made i'm glad judge roberts pointed this out there is a dispute here there is a reason she might not or with the jets and she should be given notice of those rights to dispute the debt and she's given no notice whatsoever she's just being told she o leaves volunteer or is terminated for cause she owes the money back but that's not what happened here so she has this dispute to deal with and she has these people coming after her money her and that she doesn't have any rights at all that injects my dad already i let her protect people that don't know their rights and their unsophisticated and she's not a commercial entity she's just a person notice is if she's being sued at the time she doesn't get notices the suggest that nobody could be harmed by now could it not again i'm not suggesting that i'm giving you an opportunity to write for my insurance and i i believe i record shows and it will point out the record show she had a dispute here and that the judge went to get out she was let go for work reduction and she had a dispute and she wasn't told that she had the right to due to dispute is that she was stuck if the transaction creates an obligation to pay or that it's covered by the act in this was a transaction using their own words this was a contract has this court said over and over again contract law governs that we've created a debt covered by the ads this was not a commission this had nothing to do with sales or earnings this was not money that was paid upfront to her that was not yet earned this was to schedule can't she wasn't even in say it should point out she wasn't even going so this was to schedule can't see gets one came in at the outset of her employment and another payment six months later and that was just for signing on the dotted line and going to work there so that is a transaction cause this debt what was the subject money they gave her money to pay it and she took that money and she used it to pay your medical bills and  stay you know a certain duration of time so the subject of the transaction was employment it wasn't consumer products consumer services consumer statute says the statute says we look at the subject of the but it didn't it actually kept it somewhat its stance and saying any shit any obligation to pay money out rising out of a transaction and it doesn't matter that it's an employment transaction what kind it is if it creates an you're a debt collector and this was exactly what krause did here they took the account over it was a one time shot to collect money from her and they sent out a demand for payment in full this wasn't  stating that the violation and if a sufferer continues to suffer humiliation embarrassment anguish emotional distress i i don't know of any evidence on the record support that so  even given its own even the case the plaintiff in the district court cited did not help them because those cases said it has to be consumer related and it's a story in as the record shows this is an employment matter and not consumer matter that's all for my time i can add one little thing here your honor it's my st time before the court it's a pleasure thank you so much and your staff has been fantastic you have you have rules