Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): RESPA regulation’s exceptions, but Defendant does not proffer any argument on to that point. (See Doc. # 15). Defendant sent Plaintiff a combined notice of service transfer on February 14, 2014, more than fifteen days prior to the transfer’s effective date (and which otherwise complies with RESPA’s notice requirements). (Docs. # 15, 15-1); see also 12 U.S.C. §§ 2605(b)(3). The provision, not the receipt, of notice is all that RESPA mandates. See U.S.C. §§ 2605. Regardless, Plaintiff has advanced no allegations that demonstrate actual damages caused by any RESPA violations. See Madura v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, 593 Fed.Appx. 834, 843 (11th Cir.2014) (per curiam) (citing 12 U.S.C. § 2605(f)); see also Frazile v. EMC Mortg. Corp., 382 Fed.Appx. 833, 836 (11th Cir. 2010) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). “To the extent [Plaintiff] raises the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that showing damages caused by the failure to provide notice of transfer is a necessary element of a respa claim (B) recognizing that allegation of state action is a necessary element of a  1983 claim (C) holding an allegation of damages is a necessary element of any claim under  2605 (D) holding that prejudice or injury is a necessary element of standing (E) holding that an antitrust injury is a necessary element of a  2 claim
Output (English): holding that an antitrust injury is a necessary element of a  2 claim