request that if the plaintiff is successful and and the court reverses the trial court i would ask that the court on its own motion consider transferring the case to a different trial judge x party application after the motion after any motion cut off deadlines had passed they did that x party and the trial the district judge did not set a briefing schedule did not permit the plaintiff to file any opposition other than to the x party application in itself but not to the to the motion and confused by the six party up here we're talking about the response to the because summary judgment was ruled against him and the case before mr genesis cases the the attorney was i got to say he was almost in tears because he had pointed out to to  the just the court that this was the third time he had he had appealed to the his particular case it was remanded back before the st the same district judge three times and the result was feel is that somehow i when i crafted the appeal i thought that i felt that i was limited to i didn't know whether i could submit my own declaration at the time saying what had happened i didn't know that whether this type of anecdotal evidence was even admissible before the court of appeal to determine whether there is some sort of courtroom type  bias against which would be permissible to to show or to have the case transferred now but before before your time runs out what about the merits in this case is that everything you've discussed is moot unless there some basis upon which that we are compelled to reverse this case on the merits and what i see in this case is that this piece of paper was filed in the court records and now whether that was an appropriate action that the local court should have taken it's nothing to do with experian which simply reports what they find what's what's wrong with that ok here's what's wrong with that the question that you have was addressed and the hanssen case and it assumes that experiment is technically accurate and a little bit of a little piece of information that  experience to use that maximum two to two things in this case number one is to report things public records with the maximum possible x accuracy and so those are reported this any more accurately than what it becomes aware that there's a problem with the public record that it is the piece of information that is reporting that may be contradicted by other public record information in the same concerning the same case it has the duty to reinvestigate that further information you know you know why because carol williams who's deposition that she looked at when she looked at the very document which which the court's questions talks about my client could have easily sent she looked at it and she said that was still a judgment wasn't well that they may be good at identifying what is or what is of course this is experian having to decide that the county records are incorrect of the court has incorrectly recorded this that in some respects experiences your client a favor by letting him know that the thing had been missed recorded and it took him a while to go down to the county records and get them to clear it out that he had a self help remedy there he didn't he didn't even have to clear it up there was no judgment in the first place like that you want but there was a lying on the county records that your client contest was incorrectly recorded that indicated that there was but but the way california law operates is the judgment is sooner when a document called the judgment is file stamped and placed in the court file what goes in the docket is not a judgment that's just a one line thing that says a one line or two line notation that somebody can look at to determine whether a judgment is entered into that itself is not the judge and quite solid experienced done why don't you just go down to the county records and get it all cleared up because you know i can't answer what why he did or didn't i not do that maybe he thought that maybe he was following the directions in his credit report that said if you have a problem your credit report get on the internet right just call us and tell us what the problem is so he followed subs told me i don't believe he should be faulted for following federal law on the space just by doing exactly what he was told to do but he could be faulted for not following commonsense well that's i don't think that that like somebody would say well you should have done this if he's not required to buy that the fair credit reporting act that doesn't excuse what experience failed to do by their lack of proper reinvestigation under so the issue is not what my client but they'll let's say  counsel the morning they please the court my name is nair fetter and i represent the defendant experience in this case and actually has taken things slightly out of order let me go right to the question that you excuse me actually what sixty eight sixty eight point five says is that in counties where the clerk places individual judgments and in the phylum action which is the case here then refers to judgment being entered in the register of actions and so although in terms of it goes on to sa entry is the date that the piece of paper is actually placed in the in the file but it is not simply something contrary to what counsel says it's not simply something that something is version at pages one thirty nine one forty ok six sixty eight point five refers to entering the register of actions as an alternative to the old traditional method of entering judgments in a judgment book there is and all method of proceeding whereby the court to stand trial judgments in something called the judgment book six sixty eight point five provide alternatives to that ok and that's the more modern form one of the alternatives is action at actions as entering the judgment in the register of action so that it's not merely a notation where counsel is arguing that this is not the entry of the judgement in fact that's not the ca sixty eight point five there is no judgment book there is simply what the statute says the clerk shall not be required to enter a judgment on the judgment book if any of these prior exceptions apply and that's how i read it is sixteen eighty one which is the federal statute by walk by just simply saying that whatever you found you accurately report extensionally yes i think that the way i would phrase a little bit differently which is to say that it was accurate to report that there was a judgment entered against mr dennis in the and you have no for the liability that you're suggesting maybe that experian has to go through these extra steps of analysis and look behind these documents to find out what they're really all about are you willing to take that on very clear that there are actually three separate bases on which judgment should be affirmed here each of which is independently sufficient one is what experience reported w accuracy point there is the fact that experienced come fully complied with any with its reinvestigation obligation under the complete absence of the come up with this piece of paper which is they have a public records a vendor who they audit for a liability who is responsible for looking at court records and following up on  listing this is a judgment when in fact they have evidence of is for not winning and for the law do you find the authority no matter what their practices they may have to change their practices they may have to change a business to conform with for the law because they are highly regulated there's planned this will go certainly but i think i think it would be a actually a very far reaching and dangerous holding for the court  judgment is crossed out in some places it's not a stipulation under california law can be entered a stipulation of settlement can be entered into the judgment the court records here reflected it was enter judgment the los angeles superior court later went back and issued an order saying that discipula nation was erroneous plea entered as a judgment and were vacating the judgment in the determination the evidence in the record is that experian delegated the determination as to whether a in a situation like this whether active piece of paper they have the piece of paper they could have looked so that they should've looked at it and i'll let you think the position that you can look at this piece of paper and then say that's perfectly fine it's a judgment you will take that was issued which i  can delegate the determination for a while vent vendor and then don't have to go through and review the backup that the vendor stands to support determination but i think that you know i just i don't want to sit down before mentioning one other thing