next case is lucy v russell more than one reasonable interpretation at least one of which is inaccurate the state court summons is that are at issue here are false or to bare minimum or misleading under that standard this is so because they misstate the consumer's time to answer or at the very least are plausibly understood by the hypothetical lease a th case a consumer as stating a shorter deadline than is really the case under the c p l are slender let me ask you because one of the things and it wasn't argued as least as i read the papers by either party one of the things we are bound to consider is standing your client standing to bring this case and one of the things that your client has to show in connection with standing or at least alleges injury so what is the injury that actually results from the claim that your client is bringing so your hon consumers have not only conquered interest just generally the not be told false things in a collection action but they have a concrete interest not to be told a shorter deadline than they really have and after all the greed injury that results from the well so that even them it's giving them warning in my view feel pre departure persuade me otherwise get your papers filed false time to dance or write so you have your right your ability to answer your ability to correct information your right to correct information about when to enter is impinged and this is the case for any statutory any statutory damages case under six hundred and ninety two easy that what you're talking about so for example in a case regarding a gene notice for example right so you're entitled to correct information about your time to dispute and you're given incorrect information you're told that you don't have a thirty days from when you receive the notice you're told you have thirty days from when  mail the notice or you know you're given some some wording that changes your time and makes it a little bit shorter even if it affects your own actions anyway i think that's absolutely clear from this court's jur cohen and also in struble as long as the as long as the information that you're receiving a false the topic of the false information was that was at the core of what congress was trying to to government so in struble for example which was appealing case as long as the disclosures went his purpose of making sure that people got accurate disclosures about long terms even if there was no allegation that anybody relied on them i mean yet these cases is and this is  well established as a strict liability statute there's no actual damage requirement and so as long as we're talking about as long as we're talking about information that to as long as we're talking about what congress was trying to protect which was which was to be free of false information in the course of collection actions there's going to be standing let's assume for the moment that you are right about that with regard to the federal statutory claim that that wanted to address the problem with the g p l right there you do need actual damages you would need actual damages but not answer by being given false information about the time to answer in the same way that being told in the meyerson case which obviously is not binding on this court but that is a state supreme court case being told by a landlord that you're required to give the landlord a social security number when you're not is the same sort of injury under new york law dis service have to be complete in order to be valid now that's my question it depends what you mean by service your mean under three away three talked about service as needing to you need the process  server for example needs to it what three it is talking about when it uses the term service a delivery of the papers that's very clear so for example after service the process is served is completed submission to be serviced under service is valid but there's other things that you're required to do that you haven't done to the time to answer when run that service without completion impose a duty to respond upon the person got the papers the time to answer runs from not only service but also filing an affidavit service and letting ten days run we'd sure certainly pleaded there hasn't been affected service and that so clearly the term service standing alone means the livery of the papers and that's what this case is about is that the consumer would plausibly understand service because that's how it's used in the statutes and in common parlance as meaning the livery of the papers but if your honor is asking does your times and this is entirely the point right your time to answer doesn't start running until you do other stuff and that's why this notice is misleading is because it's plausibly understood to mean i have twenty days if i'm handed the papers in person i have twenty days from from delivery of said after service was complete what would a reasonable consumer think that  that language would have at least flagged for the consumer that something more is required when it comes to non personal serve they know what it was they might not know what it was but what you're what you're seeking what you're saying i'm not saying that the point is that it was missing the words is complete i'm saying now your honor is right that if you track the statute you track the language in three hundred and twenty dollars you would you would not be either they would or they would that's all i want to know your view on that question a reasonable consumer might not understand it might well you're saying this is false because it doesn't say something that a reasonable consumer would not understand jurisprudence on communications made to a consumer which is is that language plausibly understood is to is it false or is it a minimum subject to more than one interpretation at least one of which is incorrect and i think if you depart from the statute and use the term service not only the way it used in common parlance but the way the term service standing is used in three a way it is likely to be misunderstood and therefore to act about the omission of the words as complete from after service number one the challenge language is accurate and number two the the word is complete is completely superfluous and unhelpful doesn't add anything from the co point of view and number three service means service that's complete right service means complete service doesn't mean partial service it doesn't mean half service a quarter service of their service  that doesn't tell you that you have to get it in the mail and a fixed your house service doesn't tell you that service is complete doesn't tell you have to wait ten days until after proof of services tells you absolutely nothing it just there's just no question about it if it's a consumer gets to consumers who are each gets one version there's going to be no difference either way as a defendant in a litigation you have to crack open a seat consumers are not stated is accurate and you know in addition to that we have two cases that are exactly on point even if there was a technical mistake i mean judge mcevoy and judge scratch any cases of nearly identical fine a default judgment default judgment on the other side a coin of answering you can take a default judgment the day after you fail to answer the deadline ok so if they can take a default judgment twenty days earlier than that they say they can take a default judgment twenty days earlier than they can that shortening the time to answer if they if they were accurately stated that they can't take a devout judgment after further notice and twenty days than  they would have that the consumer would have more time to answer so that is the exact issue here the exact issue there's no way to distinguish that case in the court clearly and unequivocally that such a misstatement could not influence a consumer here i mean we know well not as a jurisdictional issue but based on the case that was the basis for dismissing the complaint and bromine that there was no actual damages that understand exactly your honor that that said but also that the language that's being advocated for don't tell you that you needed both through the mail and you need it to be a fixed it doesn't tell you anything it just tells you that you have a lawsuit and you have this amount of time to three it's immaterial and there's there's case law that's exactly on point and it's i think it's quite telling that the appellee relies on this case law that completely and absent ok that has to do with overshadowing of the disputed validation provisions and the other case a lion areas case says right inside it that the misrepresentation dealt with the substantive law whether they how the debt is paid as a do with whether the debt whether certain exempt from garnishment goes right to the the meat of the case this is by definition procedural time to answer a complaint so that case actually shows establishes when you would have a situation where you have materiality which is not the situation and there's no case law in existence that supports the the appellate position is only case law by you know very clear decisions that were issued by senior district court individual's concrete interests so that an alleged violation of these provisions satisfies the injury in fact requirements of article three we reach that same conclusion here and so and the court said we're going to do that before we get to materiality it's an independent inquiry of whether or not you've shown materiality with regard to opposing counsel's insistence that the term is complete is a personal as you know we're supposed to not look for readings of laws that make terms that that are in the statutes a privilege three hundred and twenty clearly distinguishes between days after service and days after service is complete and three away clearly uses the term service to mean the delivery of the papers and then talks about completion of service as something separate with regard to the ten days your honor asked about  it's at least ten days and in this case it was it was significantly more because the time runs from one ever your st year served then the affidavit service gets filed stating the proof that you were served and then you have ten days so in many cases the affidavit service doesn't get piled for several weeks and the consumer doesn't have in lieu of twenty days thirty days the consumer and with twenty days has forty or fifty or sixty days with regard to the two district court cases they are both i think i v asli distinguishable most notably in addition the fact that they st both found that the datsun at issue on consumer data center wasn't subject to that statute at all but telling somebody they have more time is very different than telling somebody they have last time because the the those the the standard for materiality that this court has adopted is whether the is whether the whether the statement has the potential to affect the decision making process of the least of his to get a consumer so when you're told give more time you really do it's very difficult to figure out how you how that could adversely affect you but if you think that you have little or no time that your time has already run and that you're actually now just you've missed your deadline to answer that might cause the hypothetical lisa fifty k to consumer to settle rather than fight or mike was going to settle for more rather than less