know your honors to me please the court i represent danielle and natalie diedrich who have sent me to this court to request that a jury be allowed to listen to their complaints about emotional distress and other harm caused akron's refusal to honor federal or state laws rather than having those damaged determinations made on paper by a magistrate judge who never met these people in person who never listened to them testify could never consider  full range of emotion displayed by that so well of course the nonmoving party has personal knowledge speculation as to others motivations it's never it's just never enough so what personal knowledge  that they were denied loan or not given credit because had anything bad och when i do hope i'm pronouncing that correctly did i think there's two things that you need to look at their first both daniel and natalie diedrich testified that they had been denied loans and were afraid to apply for loans based on inaccurate credit reports and natalie diedrich was very clear about her conversations with aqua in which she asked them whether they were recording it accurately you complained about reports she had been seen and i pointed times told her it was reported accurately at times told her it was not well what she said but i think what she testified to was that the family had trouble taking out loans and so the implementation of of the loan modification and it seems to me that that with him fully support the theory that the family address this head on and judge romer just referred to it the district court is of the view if i'm reading it correctly that the damages that the dietrich's are asserting need to be linked to the violation itself here which was the failure to respond to this general request for information about the bank to servicing in all the rest of these things that we all agree was was a problem so the district court rejects the idea that a global it's been a nightmare dealing with auckland since the day we got this mortgage kind of state that is good enough that there needs to be some focus you either need to argue that that focus isn't necessary you don't have to focus on the precise violation or you have to show is somewhere in the record where they tie you know a loan or emotional damage to the fact that this one flaw in the process has occurred certainly let me let me address the causation question which there were three what i think the court is getting at here magistrate joseph found that even if these damages were believed there was no causal link to  written request lack of response and under the state law which was the second aspect of the claim under chapter two twenty four the causation is actually less than would be required under the rest  twenty six o five and this court's precedent in cattle as i'd like to address that very briefly wisconsin allows us litigants who are aggrieved to make a claim for either actual damages under section two to sides i believe and stay on it an aggrieved party is one having an interest separate which is injuriously affected by the judgment and so the district court thought that when all was said and done both rest both the federal law and the wisconsin law require actual damages of some kind they could be emotional they can be you know monetary you know you had to pay ten percent for your loan and if they hadn't done it could've done it for seventy percent that's fine that's obviously monetary but there but that doesn't get to the to the focus question that i'm trying to get your dress it about this qualified written request because either the dietrich's if you look at the testimony from dan and natalie diedrich following the modification what they testified to is that they were recorded in auckland was telling them that they were paying nine point six four percent interest that they had their escrow fluctuate up and down and at one point there was a five thousand dollars payment made and their escrow payments were actually being increased when they contacted when they were told that litigation expenses were billed to them despite the modification preventing that and so from july of two thousand and eleven through february of two thousand and thirteen the dietrich's were attempting to correct these errors on their own but that's not the failure of to answer the qualified written request which i assume we submitted perhaps to lay the groundwork for whatever claims might come along that it looks like a pretty general request to me but i think if you look at the actual request and ask for information specifically pertaining to the problems that daniel and natalie dietrich were having they were getting conflicting reports about how their loan was being reported that it wasn't being paid properly and they were getting reports from iraq when that money was being applied from their suspense account to escrow into litigation fees which would then support the affairs at those are not being supplied to the principal and interest payments so the qualified written request was designed to provide them information that would show either that the payments had been accurate inaccurately applied and then they could correct those about when or that their credit shouldn't have been doing that the payments were applied to their principal  interest which would allow them in confidence to go to lenders and i think that's where the causal link really comes in and the district court and i can certainly focused on whether there was sufficient proof of denials of loans and i think natalie's testimony in particular is that from the request forward they were afraid to apply for loans and she testified specifically that there were denials but if you look at the emotional distress i'm not specific she doesn't say we apply you know in february tenth for this loan and we were turned down what with all due respect i don't think that that level of specificity is required to survive summary judgment the dieter's to move for summary judgment i'm sure that's correct but there was more specific testimony about the emotional distress and that was the  element both dan and natalie testified that initially they believe their emotional distress damages rose to the level of a quarter million dollars at their depositions they testified that they would been satisfied with one hundred thousand dollars and that's a measure of how  what medical care mental health care the way they described the stress was being due to quote everything i seven but they're not describing distress from the litigation itself when you look at the totality of their testimony under cattle and and under five in really residential capital and pain versus poly the cases we settled the the level of testimony of specificity about emotional distress is relatively nominal to get past summary judgment in cattle and the plaintiffs described their testimony is nervous shaky embarrassed can't sleep don't want the doorbell to ring they were describing in general fears they had that would be both attributable to foreclosures and financial troubles as well as an inability to comprehend their situation and what danny natalie testified to was after a year and a half of trying to deal with this on their own they had an attorney help write a letter that were designed to answer these questions and did natalie specifically described part of her component of distress as having to have an attorney on call every day she talked about ed a deposition she was asked what is the basis for the amount you asked for in disclosures and she said the basis is everything that i quinn has put us through over the three years of this lawsuit hadn't existed for three years what had been going on for three years where the problems right but at that point at least a year and a half elapsed from the failure to answer no she also test i am sorry if you need to wrap up because you're i'm sorry i  think the evidence here was sufficient to allow this to go to a jury and we think that the magistrate judge you're simply interpreted the way that left it falling short ok thank you very much request i think there's examples from the briefing one of the example is in catalan itself where there were numerous qualified written requests that were that they said were respire violations and one of the rest of violations the issue was whether there had been negative credit reporting within sixty days of the cute other you are so in that case you know there is this argument that you reported the credit you didn't investigate and look into it when i sent you a q tip that you are and because of that i was damaged by the continued negative credit reporting another example of the make and think oh you carry on to the other example here's at least a question i have there's very clear testimony certainly from mrs drake the day that she suffered from emotional distress forget about the number she puts on it because that's something the rule fifty four says in any event if she was too low she'd be entitled to more of she's too so she says from everything but actually the qualifier the failure to respond the violation of the law to the qualified written request is a part of everything so why don't why shouldn't we say look she testifies very clearly that each and every one of the things that are going did was causing her distress she can go to trial a trial the court might focus or and maybe two hundred fifty thousand or one hundred thousand is too much but you know maybe she gets a thousand dollars for her request for her emotional distress for the phase when she finally think she's got things under control she senses qualified written request and she's ignored by auckland so so in other words what why is this not actually enough to allow her on a full trial to present this claim partly because it's so vague and conclusory and that would be anything but conclusion when you say i was suffering emotionally but i think that the cattle and at least provides another example because in there there's ample discussion of the types of emotional distress they they talk about the different symptoms of emotional distress how it impacted the family here when she talks about how it impacted the family she can't get loans to help her children through college she's you know constantly on the phone with the lawyer relationship troubles missing work so i think we have i have i would posit that that is fairly vague a couple lines of testimony but i think the bigger more convincing issue is the lack of a causal link the fact that she testified that everything is what has caused her emotional distress she later in that deposition clarifies everything means everything that she's been through in the three years of the litigation i mean that's actually testimony that her emotional distress was caused by the litigation and not necessarily the cute of the you are she also her testimony very clearly focuses on financial issues resulting from not being able to loans which i think led to it's unclear why they can't afford to help their kids with college unclear why they can't fix their house but it seems to be all tied into this idea that they couldn't get loans and then my god she thinks that's our fault and i understand what you're saying that maybe it really was the process that began with the foreclosure and you know actually got renegotiated and and things moved on and i gather auckland's position is that they are a veteran on their loans is that correct there's no evidence that they weren't the record it doesn't say that they weren't current and you're right your honor that there's also testimony that her distress was caused by negative credit reporting apparently from the two thousand and ten foreclosure and i don't know if that existed or not but that testimony indicates it wasn't the distress from the cute out that you are but i think you know the final nail in the of this argument is if you look at there's only one rest of violations and wisconsin statute violation issue and that is the april twenty second two thousand and thirteen response to that february twenty second so there is no way that a response to that cute other you are could have been expected to address or change any issues regarding credit reporting she may have testified you know they i think th bankruptcy case out of new york where there was an objection to the claim and basically the core analyze whether there could be a rest of violation and proof of damages and causation based on  there had been a foreclosure which the bank had said that they were it was in error and they were going to stop it the plaintiffs row acute you are saying you haven't stopped this foreclosure yet what's going on and the court specifically said no if the bank had done what it should have been responding to that would have investigated why its attorney was still doing a foreclosure and the court said it would have fired that attorney and stopped the dismissal so there is an example of how not responding to  are can lead to continued damages from this litigation that never should have happened and you know understandably emotional distress in this case the only damage other than emotional distress is this allegation that they were basically sure on money and because of the inability to obtain loans which which we contend as i mentioned is is very big in conclusory compared to the specific examples of loan denial about their allegation that they have that they had the failure to respond to the cute of you are forced them to hire a lawyer and incur a lot of expenses they would not it's that sort of ways have and we say to cases at least one case in the briefing i can't remember the name that that it makes sense that attorneys fees can't be part of your damages in proving the actual claim so your honors i wanted to mention the alleged misconduct or issue and focus on the fact that there's only one and i've done that clarity of the emotional distress as opposed to the number of sources that might have caused it i know you could suffer terribly from one ghastly event sure you could suffer because there were five or six events but the question if you if the question is did you suffer anything that seems you were the one who would be the focus not the number of events caused i agree but i think the court had more events to consider when trying to determine whether or not there been anything that had disturbed them here we have one and so we just have to look more closely at this one and see how can it reasonably a cause stress especially in light of everything that they've claimed they were stressed about the the foreclosure the inability to pay in loans which had nothing to do with this q w our response but they've essentially testified that they were not stressed out about this cute of the our response because they were stressed out because they attribute their stress to other things  you know and and the cattle and case does not support this idea that there doesn't need to be a direct causal link in that case i think it's significant there are so many issues that it kind of makes sense in the end that the court refers to reference to mortgage issues as being a reason why loans were denied because there were five different ours there were different claims for rest of violations that specifically had to do with credit reporting which is very different than this case where to her deposition why did you decide to file a lawsuit against when natalie said they were unable to provide me with any of the answers i requested follow up question what harm do you believe you suffered due to one's actions jasper specificity they said what is your injury as a result of axemen one's actions she said they've harmed my ability to take out any loans they've ruined my chances of helping my kids through college my credit destroyed multiple financial burden the whole having the legal issues the stress of party at trial would have to separate out the emotional distress caused by the failure to respond properly from the foreclosure itself in cattle and the plaintiff described what they called increased stress from the housing situation failing to differentiate between the foreclosure problems and the q w r in the rawlings case we cited one hundred fifteen dollars in postage and the answer oh yeah i get real upset about that were deemed sufficient to proceed to trial here there's