the next case on the calendar is may please the court michel martin on behalf of plaintiff appellant ms felicia palmer with the court's permission i request that jessica engle be permitted to argue this matter on behalf of ms palmer pursuant to the student appearance motion we made on consent of all parties last week thank your hon court dismissed the complaint because it incorrectly determined that she stated only insufficient conclusory facts and failed to explain the link between her pregnancy and how fannie mae treated her but the complaint contained the following sufficient facts in two thousand and eleven when the housing market was reeling ms palmer was an unmarried pregnant mother of two renting her home when she was served with an eviction notice because by no fault of her own the property was going into foreclosure she decided to purchase the property but despite being told by fannie mae that she was a qualified buyer obtaining preapproval for a loan and making three market rate offers her attempts to do so were rejected only after months of negotiation did fannie mae claim that they were rejecting her offers and demanding two hundred thirty seven percent more than the listed asking price don't you have to do it you have to plead that this was on account of her being pregnant not that she was got a bad deal not that they were using sharp tactics not that they were misbehaving in many other ways but that this was it on account of her being  pregnant doesn't that have to be a complaint yes your honor and while ms palmer may not have made that connection in an articulate way and although the facts may have gotten lost in the complaints wordiness the facts allowing us to make that and she her offers were were consistent with what the price was what the house was really really sold for but but but again the connection between that and her pregnancy is the this is the issue that i'm i'm wrestling your honor the complaint may not explicitly state that upon information and belief fannie mae discriminated against miss palmer but because she was pregnant she was pro serving at the time she was your honor no we read the but that was not that was not said it's close enough you're arguing for somebody who is group yes that is what we are arguing your honor and we have to look at the facts that are alleged in the complaint and i'm having a difficult time reading this complaint to accept your argument it seems to me i would have to conclude that an allegation that she was pregnant that she was visibly pregnant it was known to the world at large and that her offers to buy the home or reject it and that that's enough to proceed with the complaint and that seems to me just to be a man out to being to saying that being a member of a protected class and suffering some  adverse consequence adverse action not getting the job not getting not having your offer accepted is sufficient to state a discrimination claim and i am not sure that our pleading standards are that minimal honor first i understand that this complaint was confusing and difficult to parse through the facts and so with your permission i would like to take this court through the facts that are truly relevant to the issue we're here for today first  miss palmer was a qualified buyer at a time when the records strongly suggest they were aware of her relationship with mr galvanise second between the time and the time of her offers her financial status did not change except that she obtained pre approval for a loan what did change during that time was that it became clear that ms palmer was pregnant and the record reflects that between those two events fannie mae was made aware of her pregnancy forth upon information belief fannie mae was not getting any other higher or competing offers during this time fifth they still rejected ms palmer's offers only to sell the property sixteen months later for approximately argument hasn't been stated that clearly frankly that had she not been pregnant there would have been no reason whatever for the seller to suspect  relationship to the person he didn't want to have by the house so that the pregnancy was a fundamental part of what happened if she hadn't been pregnant they would have sold  fiance or whatever you want to call to be to go to to benefit from and get a free windfall from this transaction was in the complaint and that i think is would although whatever one wants to argue about the morality of the hide is not because it would would would really exempt this from from the operation of the of the of this of this discrimination the fair housing act and and it's alternative explanations and there is an alternative explanation on the face of the complaint your honor first i'd like to clarify that in the complaint miss palmer stated that while it may have made sense for fannie mae to hold mr galvin's accountable to the remaining amount on the mortgage she never said it would have made sense to hold her to that amount given she wasn't a party to that mortgage and had no legal relationship to him at the time furthermore even if it is plausible that fannie mae acted the way they did in order to prevent a potential windfall to mr galvanise that doesn't undermine the possibility of the claims that ms palmer has set forth even if this case were allowed to proceed she would not have to demonstrate that her pregnancy  sole motivating factor behind their actions she would merely have to demonstrate that it was a motivating factor but it's true at that point that they were living together and on the other no and i but at that point they were living together so mr gallagher's would your honor first i see my time is about to turn out may i conclude even if fannie mae has this alleged policy of trying to prevent windfalls to people who are about to default which i might like to make clear whether or not they have such a policy is not shown in the record and what exactly that policy would be is not in the record even if they had such a policy and even if they considered that policy in dealing with ms palmer it is still possible that they consider ms palmer's pregnancy and dealing with her whether it be independently of the policy or whether it be in trying to apply that policy so even if they have such policy and even if they considered such a policy and even if all of that is plausible that doesn't make what ms palmer pleaded in her complaint implausible and therefore this should be allowed to survive a motion to dismiss so palmer can at least get an answer if not proceed to discovery  that she was approved as a buyer and and then and then she made offers that were consistent with what the property would be shown for what she was turned down after they found out that she was pregnant after it was obvious that you was pregnant she was approved as a buyer for that huge bag right i believe so judge but i'd suggest that at the time first of all having i mean i'm speaking a bit anecdotally but the truth is there were simply thousands of cases like this the fact that fannie mae or any loan holder did not immediately pay attention to the fact that we had a party who would if they were different because you've got galvanise right who is the owner and and so they it's keyed in as judge caliber easy indicator with one of these questions it's keyed into their relationship and their relationship became starkly apparent  when her pregnancy was not adjudged you know i'm not i'm not clear on how they determined that she was mr galva as a fiance i'm not sure about that or you know have to be it's question of what the complaint know what inference can be drawn from the complaint well i get i suggest you that the pleadings obviously the courts well where the pleading standards all the complaint technically says is that she was pregnant i have two problems with that one if the problem is literally that the complaint didn't say something like when they found out that i was pregnant they decided that my relationship with this man was serious enough so big he would get the benefit of it well if i were simply living with him but not pregnant that would be if that is the problem then shouldn't for court have allowed few time means with no one man that would state what would be needed but we've just been presenting a series of things which would make that link which they are saying is already there  assumption the question is if he saved that in an amended complaint isn't that enough under littlejohn and our reading of these things to say it should not be a twelve b six you may well win later on but her whole policy with these discrimination cases is to get by twelve b six reason has been so and discord since who let in bank investor because in discrimination cases we want an answer because we answer tells us something we're not saying that she wins is just what is will be said is that i go i understand your point judge i simply tell you that many times and guess judge fannie mae didn't raise the issue of so to speak to that raise the issue of the fact that mr galvanise would benefit ms palmer raised the issue of her relationship to mr galve she understood that fannie mae might well not want mr guy was to prosper and that was contained in her complaint the fact is at some point i guess the question is she was aware of all these possibilities and time when her offers are not accepted and she's and she's told she is not going to be sold to her because of her relationship to mr galveston and that is a time when she was pregnant why does that timing not render the complaint plausible assume that was pled that that cleanly well judge i guess in light of the other things that are also alleged in the plant well again i guess my first response to that is that you are in a sense completing the job that ms palmer should have done for herself granted again she's pro se and i understand that we try to give them every opportunity but we could also say perhaps we'd find out that there was some you know misanthropic member of the team on fannie mae who didn't want her to get it i mean they're out there you can assume a lot of things i have a hard time for us trying to assume how they became aware i mean well judge i won't concede the point your honour's opposing counsel himself said it's not clear how and when fannie mae knew of ms palmer's relationship with mr galvez or when they were aware of her pregnancy he keeps saying we have to assume a lot of things because a lot of things aren't in the record this just demonstrates the need for discovery here the facts in the complaint were not stated well no one is disputing bad but they do support a valid claim and a valid claim can easily be implied if you take the time to parse through the complicated long complaint ms palmer at the least should be given an opportunity to replete for the first time with the help of an attorney she a disability resulting from contracting west nile disease that causes her to struggle with the use of language on the timing issue just help me understand the allegations in the complaint does the l or the allegations to get allegations amount to fannie mae became aware of ms palmer's pregnancy during the course of the negotiations because if that's all that's alleged it doesn't seem to me that that raises very much in the way  plausibility of the complaint or do you think there's just enough in the complaint to say that there is more specific inferences to be drawn from allegations made about timing your honor i would argue that there are and not specific facts to imply a possible claim here not only did they find out that she was pregnant during the course of negotiating the court but they found out she was pregnant after they had told her she was a qualified buyer who they would consider offers from they also told her she wasn't qualified to purchase the property at market rate even though she obtained pre approval for a loan that was above the listed asking price of the property they also didn't tell her that when it would have made sense at the beginning of the negotiations but rather after she had already submitted three offers if you really want to negotiation to succeed you explain to the other party that after after they learned that she was pregnant is that in the complaint honor while the record is not extremely clear as to exactly when fannie mae was made aware of it the record does show that at the least they were aware of it around the time of her second offer unless there are further questions i will conclude