court not follow minnesota law when it dismissed stephen words as claims like to talk briefly today about the facts the statute and the minnesota supreme court decisions all of a reversal in this case on the facts outlined in the earlier decision of this court in some detail specialized asserted claims that completed in two thousand and thirteen specialized still came forward with the claim it fallen behind but couldn't respond wouldn't respond did not conduct an investigation to determine just what the how that debt was handled over a series of assignments and substitution of new ministre toure's of the mortgage  he was told to go find an answer from specialized predecessor someone's words have been selected or golf with and he suffered injury injury under the statute when the district court said he wasn't injured those injuries included spending money to get records which specialized required him to  more than four hundred dollars in late charges that were he believed were unjustified and were never really explained he hired counsel to investigate his claims and now necessarily but they may meet the bar were sustained an injury part of the statutory caps he also suffered a credit injury as outlined in this affidavit that he filed with the court in two thousand and sixteen specifically outlining how a lender had offered him an eight percent grade on a car bomb and told him if it weren't for the erroneous employees in the credit report from specialized it would have been a five percent loan all those things are facts that we submit put this case where we didn't the purpose of the statute the regulatory scheme of the statute and as compelling as those facts are and should be the statute is also clear and we think the statute needs a little analysis from this court that it didn't get in the district awarded them and only was dissuaded from that view by a ruling of the court that this court that took the view that  be you st had to show actual damages and that then those some of those things would be added is it dition all remedies that's not part of the minnesota statutory scheme it's how rest both work rest is actual damages and then addition all the following additional relief but the minnesota statute is very clear it requires an injury and we know that the attorney's fees provide an injury and then it says that mandatory language the court shallow war for different forms of free we all think that is different in that way or do we also have that proximate cause like we held in that the previous generation in this case are under or under the federal statute well i think under this statute you look at what the court did  i think yes they didn't alter the answer the question in engstrom because it really wasn't there the district court had disposed of the case without addressing that but  for a refusal statute like this under minnesota law i think the words a bar injured by and then it goes forward with any violation of the federal statute which again that fact is decided in law the case that there was a violation of repeated violation and you read this court's decision if it's a clear violation or a series of violations  i don't think any federal court should be turning a blind eye that that type of conduct and saying injuries weren't caused by weyrich and it's a specific type of the record when we deal with that and please feel free to correct me if i completely wrong about my reading of the record your honor you're not completely wrong i am not sure what you should do with it because we clearly prove that there were these charges and we've heard sort of big suggestions that oh they were it just it or some of them would not be collected or would be ironed out that hasn't happened to my knowledge  so it's one item of injury that maybe needs to be remade again and i hate to ask for that but i think that's one of the things that may or may have to come here  but i think it's important again in the statute that the minnesota statute isn't structured the way rest is and the district court here clearly because damages is the st item in the list of four statutory remedies that must be awarded proof of actual damages is somehow part of one of the elements of the claim and that's just to me that's a far fetched notion of statutory interpretation you can't read the statute and conclude that all what they mean here is what the district court what these i'm published decisions and this court's earlier decision i think wisely avoided embrace that rationale and instead remanded but the district court really didn't and may need to remember for the four hundred that the record isn't clear on it's information that's in the possession of specialized or its predecessors and hasn't been given to mr works we should not suffer in any way because of the absence of their record keeping or this is a bird recognized in its earlier decision the failure of records the employee should suffer in as a consequence of there not being records available and i hesitate to do this but if the court doesn't find bradish and as clearly guiding it to say under minnesota law which applies here this requires a reversal and a judgment in favor of mr words then i think you really do need to certify the question to the minnesota supreme court and have them answer whatever review question there is but it's unusual to me to see a case where there are two minnesota supreme court cases that i do recognize that it's a discretionary call for the federal court it was discretionary for him it's discretionary for you but i do think it's the right thing to do if you're in doubt if you find this to be a perp lexing question i look at branch and angstrom and the factual and statutory record here i don't think it's that difficult question so but if there was a continuing and delivered violation of the statute you could not get punitive damages if there were no actual damages yes that is correct and this court is actually determined that they were not any ongoing and what i'm trying to understand is whether a person can violate the federal statute without conking images for purposes of the minnesota that not before this court may have the information with regard to those images but because of the settlement we were not allowed to have them it may be looking at the record we had doing provide that information to us and he declined but in the day it's a these hearings to see the specify people you would normally stuff fox all i heard several times that minnesota law requires proving actual damages under the statute it's just not true and stephen words demonstrated what the minnesota supreme court has recognized as recoverable the attorney's fees incurred in you mentioned that case the judge doty it comes up to us the day before our argument it's decided in a live point nineteen well judge doherty summary judgment order was in two thousand and eighteen so we didn't have a case  that most lead doesn't piggyback on the rest in the sense that it requires the same thing or that you have to have a rest cause of action in order to violate laws it just isn't what the statute says this court has determined there was a violation the district court had already determined that mr words had proven his attorneys fees as a result of the violations that he found initially under arrest but this court reversed tab but it didn't reverse the idea that there were a tourney season curd the argument that we have  not abandoned or walked away from any of our claims and this court never determined that there were no actual damages that's just a misstatement say that and it's it's just drop the idea that we're here with too little too late it's just not the case this statute again i would say read the statute it's bad i'll repeat my request that you reverse it or judgment in our favor or remain on that if you are in doubt certify the question and let's get this concluded thank you