i reserve three minutes for of all your honors the district court's award of summary judgment to mr wertz should be reversed for three reasons first s l s responded to each of mr wertz as qualified written requests and complied with r service or can do one of three things in response first of the service or can make appropriate corrections in the account of the borrower secondly after investigation provide the borrower with a written explanation for why the service or believes that is correct or thirdly after investigation the service or can provide information requested by the borrower or an explanation of why the information requested is unavailable or cannot be obtained but there's no dispute that there's a qualified request that is correct around ok what's missing in the other two the qualified request the record reflects that s l s did two of the things that it could do in response to the qualified written request here and there they're an investigation yes there was the record reflects that there was you know agree that the statute requires a reasonable investigation by the service or i think that standard is is subject to debate i know it's subject to procedural requirement that you make inquiry into the matter and here the regular much is it your position is there was no requirement for specialized to do a reasonable investigation i think we did a reasonable investigation your honor but as to the legal standard prior to the reg ex change i think the standard was a procedural one and you'll see that in the case of lose your investigation well this is unlike those cases where that are cited by mr wertz where for example in one of the cases chase just spit out a form didn't look into the matter at all attach some documents and said here you go in the other one holland that was moray and the other one holland the  borrower had identified the specific issue so i think you misapply my first payment identified it three times and the service are never looked into those issues that hit the facts here are quite different the borrower identified three issues that he wanted us to l and thirteen and third he took issue with an october two thousand and thirteen payment he contended was made s o s looked into and addressed each of these inquiries it provided mr wertz with the information available to it and explained that it did not have additional information which it was required to do under which it was allowed to do under arrest that's what ruskell required yes you're saying that you didn't have to do what he subsequently did which was find out about the mistake and and there's the linchpin of the era below there's never been a mistake established the district court in its first order said there's an error here that as a last field to identify and that's why i violated respa there's no error to identify i thought he said that you didn't do a reasonable investigation and that would be true whether there was an error or not you still have to do a reason to geisha if we reject your procedural argument about the meaning of the word investigation and so why wouldn't that be enough to show violation you know you didn't do any investigation going yes your honor if the standard is reasonable investigation then i think reversal would be required for another reason and that's that there was a fact issue as to whether there was a reasonable investigation but out of the facts of this case which are a bit unique there was this prior service or right j p morgan chase bank this was within the one year period after chase stopped servicing the loan so mr wertz had every right to go to chase and ask for information the information that s l s told him he didn't have correct yes it has to investigate and whether that's procedural reasonable i think we satisfied either inquiry or it can tell them that we don't have information and here this is actually a case where respire worked he went to chase and got the very information that that it didn't have as his expressively entitled to do that under the statute to say we don't have it he sent qualified written request to chase to and got the very information it was that he was seeking this isn't instance where ruskell worked it and here's the thing the remember the three things that he was looking for right why did you think our my loan was delinquent at the time of transfer there were these february two thousand and thirteen twelve and thirteen payments and there was there's a bold header stating misapplication of proceeds from suspense account on principle and then it goes on for four paragraphs as to why mr wertz believes that that was an error if you say a regional investigation in no wise required them to check with chase that chase had the information he was looking for i know but that's not the question i ask are you saying that a reasonable investigation did not require them to ask chase anything yes because russ allows the service or expressly to say we he never identified that issue for us and that's what makes this case different esle us thought it was investigating something else the borrower has to give enough information as to what it thinks the error is that's the  i think you miss applied my first payment so you think when the statute says that the creditor can give an explanation of why the information request is unavailable that means they don't have to investigate anything beyond what they have in their own files i think that yes that is what rest but contemplates is that there might be information we don't have and we can tell you we don't have it and we can tell you why be we believe the account is correct the case law does not bill or cannot be obtained by the service or does not imply that the servicer can obtain things that it doesn't and yes your honor it does but here the end result was that mr wertz did obtain the very information he was looking for and the record also reflects by the way that s o s a standard procedure is not when it receives a new qualified written request to say no we're not doing any further investigation  reinvestigate to relook at everything and s o s is representative testified this was in the image system the prior records and this would not have changed the outcome it still showed that the account was delinquent and again the district court said s l s neither neither the district court nor s o s were in a position to determine whether the error occurred neither of them chase was the only one who could make that determination the district court  those accounts were misapplied that those payments were properly applied excuse me oh if if the court concludes that s r s did not do a reasonable investigation do you then or do you have any fallback argue no either i think it's it's a procedural requirement that we satisfy time or it's a reasonable investigation then you have to reverse and let us have our day in court and i'm saying assume you lose on those issues do you lose the case or do you have some fallback you know i have fallbacks let me turn to the issue of dan not you're going to argue damages in pattern or practice but you've been focused on how you did such a reasonable investigation i will turn to the issue of damages your honor the actual damages issue peace is actually pretty simple mr wertz paid eighty dollars to obtain bank statements those bank records have anything to do with that they can't they don't go back that far they were specifically related to issues in two thousand and twelve and two thousand and thirteen and under that the eighth circuits his decision a rustic lamp cannot survive without the existence of actual damages in a word of statutory damages without actual damages would be unsupported both by the plain language of the statute and by the spokeo decision w you can't have stack statutory damages alone based on a bare procedural statutory violation the cases cited by mr wertz predate spokeo and there simply an opposite in light of that decision and i see i'm into my rebuttal time but i would like to address briefly the pattern or practice of noncompliance and that is even if statutory damages were available in the absence of actual damages s l s did not engage in a pattern or practice of noncompliance that term is interpreted with its usual meaning and that means an institutionalized standard something that amounts to a standard or routine we have operating here at worst there were two violations of respa when s o s tried to meet the substance of mr violations he found that we would fail to respond adequately to only two of the qualified written requests was november eighth and december twenty seventh he didn't find that we violated anything in response to the other three so what you've got here are  limited instances and if you find a violation of respa you've got limited instance instances of noncompliance that is not a pattern or practice or something pervasive at the institutional level this is an this is an instance where the last is trying to get simply failed to do its job here rest but is a consumer protection statute and one of the basic requirements of as a last is job as a service or is to respond to problems that a borrower is having to fix when he or she needs their loan f do once they discover a problem with their loan rest like gives gives the borrower the ability to raise these issues with the service or and have them addressed mr wertz did his job here he made every loan payment when he discovered there was a problem he brought it up to as a last through multiple phone calls and eventually through the qualify written requests as a last completely failed to do its job it it did a cursory investigation of his of his first letter it hardly responded to a second and second through fourth letters and in his fifth letter why would they be responsible for more than what for information that they don't have in their possession is the loan servicer this is their job to have this information as of last in their deposition specifically testified that when a loan is transferred from one service or to the other they get the entire loan file this includes the the loan history so s l s when they receive that first qualified written request they only had two years of the loan history  they should have looked at that and said and and gone back to chase relation to realize they didn't have a complete loan file they should have gone back to chase and obtained it from chase instead they went they responded to mr worth's and said if you if you have proof you made these payments please well they said we require that you provide this to us and we require that you you obtain the prior loan history from your prior service or which is really not his job he should have to get his loan history and he should have to prove up payments that he made and so so they s o s really did have a duty to look beyond just the two years of this loan when this was a twelve year old loan my concern is even if you're right about the failure to do resolve this to geisha is where the damages and where's the pattern practice because of i understand the statute crackle you have to show a pattern or practice to get the damages i mean to get the damages whether there are there are the actual damages which the court found the district court found as that how are those damages those eighty dollars caused by the failure to investigate the chase situation i thought those records were related to the twenty twelve and twenty thirteen the entries that your client was disputing which actually i gather turned out to be correct so there's two two points there first of  all the the issue of these missed payments if you look at the letter that s l s referred to in their briefing where where that it discusses that if you look at the next sentence after the one they quote in their briefing it says however mr wertz then made extra payments to to bring the loan current so the misstatements doesn't the missed payments don't come into play the way that as a last wants them to the other the other issue is that that's still required that mr wertz provide proof that he made all its payments at that was from the first letter and on he needed those bank statements to prove that he made all of his payments if he would not have provided those then s l s still could have could have possibly found some some in some discrepancy and claim that he didn't make it so he still had to provide those it doesn't they were still part of the the information s o s requested in part of the information as a last needed in order to do its it investigation or that they claimed they needed at least and so and that goes so going to the issue of when he sent tho the record is very clear that as a last did not review those documents except for reviewing him for a loan modification which was a hold on you say you think the eighty dollars are actual damages but if there are no actual damages then you would have to show a pattern or practice tried to get statutory damages well not necessarily in this case but i'll speak to the pattern in practice try to hit on both of those i mean there are really two questions or if there are no actual damages then can you get statutory damages at all and then if you can don't you have to show a pattern or practice to get them so ye s mr wertz still can get statutory damages with out without actual damages and that would be why is that i mean the statute says any additional vishal damages the court mail why doesn't that imply that before you can get the additional statutory damages you have to have some original actual damages because there are there's plenty of truly procedural errors where in in great burg the plaintiff had alleged that his i believe a cable t v provider had not destroyed some  incorrect information on it in the problem there is or was not individual or particularized harm because anybody could could claim that they are their t provider didn't destroy information anybody could plug in their their name to the spokeo website in that in this case as well as his failure to investigate and failure to fix this problem effected mr wertz individually he wasn't claiming that there was there's just an underlying policy that s l s had that that they're not complying with he's saying there is a problem with my account this was his mortgage this for anybody this is their their biggest liability at least for most people there is an underlying expectation that stems from the mortgage documents the mortgage and they know that s l s that any mortgage servicer gets things right that when a borrower makes their payments that they're applied correctly in that they're not they're not go get they're not going to have their morry service or continue to continually tell them that they're behind when they're not so this is a this is an individual lies it is a concrete harm and so you can't you may not be able to place a dollar amount on that but it is an actual harm there is a right there is a there is an inherent right that if if a borrower makes their payments they're going to be applied correctly and this is an article three standing argument i think you're making that's why isn't that what spokeo is about and when i was asking is the meaning of the statute when it says any additional damages  o of a pattern or practice doesn't the statute limit that to situations where there were actual damages first and then allow additional damages and it does not in the best the best comparison to that is looking at the fair debt collection practices act statute which includes that same language about additional damages but yet the f t c p a it's clearly established that that plaintiffs in those cases can get statutory damages without actual damages and it's a similar there's a reason there are similar to here in the f t c p a those claims are going to stem from unfair collection practices by a by a debt collector there is a recognized inherent right to someone not being hounded by a debt collector it's same thing here when i have a mortgage i have an inherent expectation that i'm going to i'm going to my payments are going to be applied correctly and if they're not that when i approach my lender about this through rest that they are going to conduct a reasonable investigation of this investigation that appropriately addresses the issues and they're going to correct my error  once they once they discover it once they once they review this so that's that's why in cases like this statutory damages would apply even without actual damages because of that inherent that inherent right that the mortgage company gets this right it may be different that because there is a there's another component to rest  where someone can just request information about their loan there may be there may be less of an of a reason to provide statutory damages if i want the name of the owner of my loan their contact information and i don't get their phone number or something like that but it's very different when it's actual a true error with the loan a substantive issue with the the the the cases in the briefing that allow for pattern practice when there is multiple q w ours and then on that same along the same lines it is there isn't any there isn't a bright line test for a pattern or pattern or practice violation this was something that the district court look at the entirety of the evidence and determine that there was a pattern and practice it is something that can be left to the discretion of the district court and it is really it is really the type of inquiry that that is most appropriate for the for the district court in closing again this is s l s's job they say no matter what they have to do an investigation that that actually reflects the issue at hand it has even though this reasonable language was added laying later they still have to do an appropriate investigation they did not do that mr wertz made repeated at thank you your honor i have three brief points to make the first comes back to the actual damages issue on the eighty dollars those statements would only relate to the twenty twelve and twenty thirteen payment issues and the district court found no rescue violations with respect celestials response or anything else relating to those payments those were resolved and also last as favor i think i heard the argument that well i had to go get account records and you should have had those in your possession but as celeste would not have had mr wertz as depository bank account records in its possession this is clearly an instance where us a lesson is intitled to say we don't have that information if you have something you'd like to tell us we're all ears the fact is s l s looked at its information and conclude the pickling clear the payments were missed and it told him so and his position was substantiated those actual damages have no causal connection to the district court found second point all of the cases that are cited by mr wertz on the pattern or practice of noncompliance those involved an utter failure to respond repeatedly so five times six hundred thirty one times in one instance the facts here are very different where the service or is attempting to respond and is looking at information that's not a pattern of practice of noncompliance by c m out of time