transmitted from the debt collector to the to the point of bank on appeal the second circuit reversed and said no the occurrence was when  the bank froze the account because at that time there were two things that were satisfied first that there was a complete cause of action and second that the plaintiff had notice of the problem or the actual violation of the if the c p a scans were frozen but all of that occurred on the thirteenth december thirteenth the what happened actually and was it was found that citibank placed a block on the account is what their bank what's going on here try to find it was going to happening and the bank said we don't know you have to call this number tomorrow the next morning he called the bank that was the fourteenth the bank told him i told him the details the next days i think it was the actual the actual imposition of all the sequestering actually was the next day the fourteenth was filed in the forty's all the documents say december fourteenth it was lifted on that i think was the fifteenth she was  say it's plainly states that the c p a violation does not occur for the purposes of section sixteen ninety two k d until the prank freezes the debtors account and that says nothing about a notice did not occur until citibank throws benjamin's account because it is only then that he had a complete cause of action and notice of the f t c p a violation and and so that leads to your argument well we have also have a very clear statement by the quarter to be understood say that knowing i would not have occurred prior to the actual the start of the period could have been prior to the actual freezing the account because that's the injury that's the final element of that because of action but we don't have all the knowledge of the cause of action the cause of the cause or actually the thing we need to find out and then  think if we just fall when someone is this is fully read i think as maybe maybe you're appreciated we have also the judge addressed to the discovery rule which is kind of interesting applies to told the start of the limitations period until the plaintiff has the facts which form the basis of the cause of action that's the the general expressed rule on some situations  fighting about the injury is the that's the last thing and then you have the entire course of action and those are some cases then and there also were some cases there were cited which have a different discovery rule for a special situation like under rico which is a kind of complicated froze the account and second if it was determined that the account was frozen on december thirteenth two thousand and eleven whether or not the sky every rule applied and gave life to this action with respect to the first point of re it is now crystal clear after having subpoenaed the operation manager for citibank and deposed her and she stated unequivocally and this is in the record that the account was frozen on december thirteenth two thousand and eleven in addition we have a declaration from the appellant which he states that he knew on december thirteenth two thousand and eleven that is account had been frozen how do you know his wife told him he had heart palpitations he tried to access the account he couldn't do so he contacted his counsel two or three times that very day and he knew that there was a legal issue here that he had to attend but yet he didn't do so and the claim wasn't filed until after the statue of limitations had run so there is no dispute here really the record is crystal clear that the freeze occurred on december thirteenth two thousand and eleven the case was commenced not until december fourteenth two thousand and twelve as putting his argument in the best light i think is that he didn't have all the details that he would want to i'm aware anywhere he knew that he was injured on the thirteenth and that's that's that starts the clock the facts that he had the facts upon which could be based even though he didn't know the details of who the  or on the social security numbers etc yeah and apparently the brother was using mr benson in this case the men's room in this case his his social security number and that's how there was there was a false client's attention he directed citibank to remove the restraint and it was done you know that and the contact was made with my client i believe on the fourteenth and my client then immediately contacted citibank and citibank remove the restraint so this was this was you know clearing a mistake but the time to move on to the f t c p a for a claim based on that mistake was it was time because they waited too long in terms of the discovery rule  there really is no no issue regarding the discovery rule doesn't the court doesn't need to decide it as judge said below because the knowledge of the freeze and the freeze and that case if it's if it's decided differently then then this court decided in baen's him until it could potentially undo the whole thing because there i believe it's a third circuit case with third circuit said that the statue limitation starts to run when at the last point in time when the debt collector put under under took to do the act that allegedly violated statute so yes i mean  if there's a potential that this whole thing will on wind if the supreme court agrees with the third circuit unless the court has any questions i'll rest on my papers thank you thank you false document which is that's what's required on doing this is trying to point out the differences between your your position and your ever served or to characterize the elements of the cause of action as details is a little bit start your period of diligence and then you have to take action when you learn having been diligent and that was the next day or statute of limitations purposes it seems to me that the harm once you're aware of them and you have you would've guessed it was the same thing because he had no legal possible seizure of the account but that's not a record and in fact there's plenty of things it could have a tax lien put on his account if you know much of different things that we didn't know what it was about and you know the thing is is this issue is you know there's a tort if you know there's a tort then you can name a john doe defendant but you can't go in and file actually as a john doe defendant for some unspecified toward based just on an injury that's that's insufficient