for two independent rhys's st the intangible harm that the fair credit reporting act was trying to protect there's a very close resemblance to the type of harm that has traditionally been protected by both american and english courts and secondly even if it does not congress was well within its rights under article one of the constitution to create an interest in a modern intangible harm for which damages  particularly difficult to assess we believe that the article three analysis in this case flows directly from the u s supreme court's decision in spokeo the problem with the court underneath is that the court underneath the misapplied the test under spokeo in this important way they now says under spokeo is asked to is not as to the end individual spokeo teaches us that the now says as to the alleged type of harm that has been alleged so if we even if we look at the type of harm and let's just assume that we were go with you that hurley's completed a different type of application than the other two right that's quick but once again i think you're falling in mean while all i'm trying to do is i'm just trying to make sure that i am trying or that i understand what your argument is because the other two had applications where if you will the disclosure information may have been in the midst of it but the ruiz completed application was in a different place  signed the f r c a disclosure of a month later and so therefore as long as the disclosure suggests what it had to say i'm trying to figure out why then has any standing because again lou on teaching us that a injury in fact is the invasion of a legally protected interest that is both concrete and particularized well i understand that and so you therefore arguing that torres and guerrero had it in the middle of the hole and that they were confused i'm having a tough time understanding how rule we makes the same allegation with as much with respect your honor that is the wrong analysis as lou want teaches the key to the phrase that i just discussed on injury in fact is the legally protected interest the supreme court teaches us we look at the interest we do not look at the individual that is what justice alito said and spokeo so if the interest is concrete and so long as you allege a violation to that interest and if you decide that congress had a legally protected interest as concrete no more is required in fact that is the key to the now so here they have to show is that there's a genuine question of material fact in order to get through summary judgment as to whether they suffered a concrete injury as a result of the alleged violations well the concrete injury i guess i can understand what one might argue as to ruiz i'm trying to figure out how there could have been a concrete injury in this particular situation when he signed a different disclosure at a different time and at that point i guess the spokeo made at the us supreme court and last year don't judge alito say that's precisely what you have to show justice alito said that intangible harms can be concrete there's one thing it said is that intangible harms the the the the the the the plaintiff in that case said that but for the but for this well this was all inferred in a generous way because it was on a motion to this mess but it do not know if i would have signed the documents doesn't doesn't that doesn't the deviation from them for you call it there have to have to fact the  right which is the right to control your prime your urine financial information and some meaningful way no judge corpsman and here's why the supreme court spokeo is that your costs are going on the actual harm this is precisely the argument spokeo made at the u s supreme court in last they say there must be some tangible harm there must be some real world harm but it was lost in fact look at the individual you look at the concrete interests as being alleged the key is once you meet once the court determines that the congress had a substantial interest in a concrete right that is the end of the now says no further actual is itself concrete is itself concrete it goes on to say it is of no consequence how likely robbins is to suffer additional concrete harm as well such as the loss of a specific job opportunity and i opinion which says that once you meet the requirements of the statute well she determined that the legally protected interest is concrete so wrong as you meet that right and it is tempered it is not divorced from the harm that you're trying to obtain from the was your economic damage been impacted by this that is what you'll never you know for your case why because you look to the harm that congress was trying to protect why should meet that no further requirements are barred in case there are for harm and you're trying to protect is it is the right of the of the employee to control the release of information and the question did this particular in this particular case did it did the did it affect it in a in a meaningful way that it undermined that right in a meaningful way and i point again that inside he the court and i'm not going to read the whole thing but it seemed to me that quote was particularly concerned about the fact that the defendant that the that the employee testified that if he if he had been given the proper notice notification he would not have signed it if you if you're right i don't know why you put in an affidavit do you intend to write in fact why did you put i group the supreme court has said that no additional harm is necessary now we are coming back until the supreme court know some additional harm is necessary we believe that violates what judge alito was saying in spokeo he says once you meet that right no additional harm no confusion no nope no physical injury no motion distress nothing else is required nothing else means nothing else so the inquiry for this court is to determine whether the notice in authorization provisions here go permission and they also asked for the waiver and if you're right that's the end of the discussion we do need to engage in argument that was made our primary rb it was is that under spoke you don't need to do this analysis to problem was is that the court underneath undertook a improper analysis under spokeo spokeo does not look to the individual is a class by class individual by individual analysis if you go to footnote eight in the opinion justice alito explains very clearly word that is what the supreme court used in other words you don't look to the individual you look to the type of hondas being alleged so wrong is a type of crime being alleged is the type of harm that the that the congress intended to protect that is whether there's article three standing all of the article three standing can come from various places we all know comes from the statute can come from the constitution it can come from common law but it can also come by statute intangible rights are those rights that are confirmed by statute so when the court comes in to determine whether under article one the congress exceeded its authority because under article three we need a case in controversy we look to see whether there's an injury in fact in luan the court was very specific an injury in fact an invasion to a legally protected interest interest is what the what the u s supreme court was asking to look at what is the interest of congress so wrong is it is a interest you believe is concrete no additional harm is required i thank you for your time yes we'll give you a minute for a bottle let's hear from your opponent r a informational claims the plaintiff st claims the underside need applicants have standing wherever they can show an f c r a informational violation nothing more is required is what they're saying that is not what saeed stands for then plaintiff the court has already noted seemingly concede in a different breath that they bear an evidentiary burden upon summary judgment to demonstrate a concrete harm and then they claim that the declarations in the deposition excerpts they offer meet this burden however the declarations that are referenced were never offered in the excerpts of the record to this court in fact the declarations that were offered were the declaration support of the classification motion that don't even address the issue of standing by any stretch then the plainest rely on deposition excerpts that are parsed and taken out of context and do not show that they suffered any concrete harm in connection with the disclosure and authorization forms each one of them signed on the st point and f c r e informational claim alone a violation alone is not if in fact the declaration the seemed to suggest that disclosure they were confused as to what they were authorizing when they authorize shamrock to procure those reports it i mean we're here on summary judgment we're here giving every benefit of the doubt to the nonmoving party and i'm looking at then what is the standard deprived of the bill of the to mean fully authorized and i look at what they've a verdict in their declaration and it seems to me that they're saying they were confused as to what they were authorizing based on what was in that now i i put ruiz to the side because he doesn't even author he doesn't even claim the same problem he sign is if c r a did closure a different dime but i'm having a tough time seeing on summary judgment why at least tourism guerrero would not have waiver d in the case of saeed the the the allegation the court found show that the plaintiffs the plaintiff would not have signed the authorization form had it not contain the liability waiver here there's no facts that would give rise to any such conclusion like that they do need for review the forms were in summary judgment or not at the motion dismissed stage they have a burden to a proffer of facts supporting their standing procreate lives moved to the statute i mean i don't want i don't want to take away from your questions if you want to get have any but let's move to the statute of limitations problem who has the burden of proof on the statute of limitations  all one way to look at this i mean i'm talking about the statue of limitations her always claim i think would be barred by the five year statute seems pretty clear because he filed his claim more than five years but how do i under that statute for for those two and then the statue of limitations issue is nd are we really on let's talk about guerrero is there a two year can i find that guerrero filed his claim more than two years after he should have discovered the violation correct when when when the torres and guerrero applied for employment they were informed that that was conditioned on the results on the results of a attending a number of things including a consumer report and and he also testified as a position that that at the time he received the job or for he would be subject to a background check my colleague stole my question right out of moma how could we suggest that would have been the case  guerrero my colleague how do adequately suggested what career owes problem was in there was right there but in torres he had no idea that this was a part of the whole when the when the paperwork came to him it came later they it's it's a deuce through the declaration of randy bears and other evidence in the record but that the process was the same for all employees during that period where they would be placed on notice that a background report would be issued in connection with their hiring and they would complete the disclosure and authorization form the i don't want to minute under her was job offer it was one way but on like it tours tourism's job offer doesn't explain what would be included it just says it would be a background check and tourist testified that shamrock never it that his statute would have run the the standard is that you discover that a violation that there is a violation which would be the issuance of a report in this instance well i mean there's no question as my colleague has pointed out the consumer report was right there no question he would have known that was what they were going to use but that wasn't there in torres's situation that language wasn't there it wasn't there at all so how would he know fueling the light most favorable to the to your opposition and that the standard for discovery purposes as it is discovering the  the violation that the issuance of the consumer report not necessarily what the report entails or the logistical but it was another thing it is issue it was nothing in guerrero's variant or is job offer which said that the background check would include the consumer report only in guerrero's job offer right it's but it is otherwise referenced in deposition testimony and the declaration of randy there is the process that is employed at shamrock phone i mean the documents and what they got i but i can argue i can hear your argument for a two year statute john carroll but i'm trying to pin you down now again why is torrez subject to the same thing there was nothing in there that said there would be this consumer report necessary for the background check in the offer and you know again it's the overall process shamrock food that's it used to be the evidence there's no testimony by torres that he  was unaware of the consumer report for issuing he had the test is whether there's actual reconstructive noticed and added minimum here or there is constructive notice was a constructive notice i mean we're on  who we are not here on the court having looked at everything and making it a germination we're here on a motion where i'm giving every intention of the fact of the opposition it's the fact that that the plaintiff th suggestion regarding the value and validity of the evidence that you've produced i will i will i will address your issue and then i'll tell you why the focus again i think is on the wrong point i know i know that argument because we're talking about confusion is very difficult for people to understand why they're confused if you ask people why they're confused they can explain it precisely because they're confused you know for example he did not understand the wouldn't get it from from a person who collects or dispensers financial information your honor with respect when we look at article three standing the test for all three standing does not depend on the particularities of any one person it depends on the class of individuals it depends upon what congress was doing in luan as a matter of fact to address the declaration issue about when he  what the court said now quote from footnote seven it said the plaintiffs quote never has to prove that he has received a procedure that he that he received that if he had received  procedure the substitute result would have been altered you never have to prove that for article three standing right because it focuses on the individual all the problems that we've identified with judge wilson a kid be alleviated if the focus was instead and i urge the court to look at spokeo tonight to look at the court at nyad because both those decisions are on point if we look to see what congress was doing and what type of harm was the congress trying to protect that is the article three once you do that no more is required to the extent saeed demands a confusion is required that is not consistent with spokeo he spoke you know justice alito was very clear that is the basis of the decision that is the for justice stevens decisions in the reporter's case the the freedom of information act cases where it is an intangible concrete interest you don't have to show you're confused those are the questions you would never hear a court ask an article three case article three still you look to the statute and the type of primates it's meant to protect it here we're trying to protect congress trying to protect people's ability to maintain their private information and to provide authorization for we have a ri  is long been sit no one in common law that you have a right to your property interests even if it causes actual harm the concept of being able to tell someone get off my lawn you have a right to your property if you have a right to withhold permission for anybody to come on their property if someone does come on their property you have a right to sue them and common law even though they did no harm whatsoever to that property right is that because legally protected interest as little one teaches us i that we're looking at the interesting interest interests or the injury we look to see what congress is doing the judge wilson had by going down this line and requiring declarations and confusion and everything the site says i statutory requirement and a quick determines that is a legally protected interest no more is required these are the arguments a spoke you have made to the us supreme court and were rejected you do not have to show confusion you just have to show injury you have to show that had you had you know you are right you would have cited something different there is no requirement of that and to the extent cite a demand such it is inconsistent with spokeo justice alito was clear it is the only way article thr thank you very much counsel kids just argue