Legal Case Summary

Our next case is Caprio versus health care revenue recovery group. Good morning council or hey, it's through the afternoon. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. I'm pleased to court. My name is Joseph Jones. On behalf of the appellant Raymond Caprio. Did you want to reserve any time, sir? Yes, about four minutes. Four minutes. Yes, go ahead. There's an important case that about 21 years ago, Mr. Jones. Right. You're Mr. Jones. Jones. Okay. Very easy. Joseph Jones

. Approximately 21 years ago, this court decided a very important case in the Fairdeck Collection practice arena. What we call the FDCPA. I want to talk about that case just for a moment because it's important to the case here at hand. The case that the case that this court decided about 21 years ago was Graziano versus Harrison. And the reason that it's important is that a couple very, very bright rule decisions came out of there. And the first one was that the court decided that for a consumer to dispute a debt effectively. And to invoke the the protection provided that consumer on the Fairdeck Collection practice is that that dispute has to be in writing. Meaning that cannot call to just view it. They can't set up a smoke signal. So you're. So Graziano should tell us presumably that there are not two equally effective means of contesting a purported debt. Therefore, the the letter here isn't. Isn't doesn't fall within the ambient of one is legal. That would be correct. We would have to define what writing means today is where we have emails and I kind of step outside of a pen and paper. You know, pen on the paper. But yes, okay, a telephone call with that. And it tells us that you need to you need to put this dispute in writing

. And you need to do that in order to invoke the purglygist into the protection provided on the FDCPA. You acknowledge that there was a there was a valid. There was a valid. It contained a proper validation notice in this letter. I would I would say how did what you say was wrong somehow overshadowed that valid that proper validation. Okay, well, I was start by saying that I I won't agree that the notice is proper. Okay, the words to statute is in there, but to properly give that notice. Graziano as well as it's well established in in the FDCPA arena is that they have to give that notice effectively and clearly in an non confusing manner to the consumer. So simply putting the words on a piece of paper isn't enough. Well, how do you say that you're that the notes here overshadowed? Well, valid valid. You know, notice. Sure. The way I would say that overshadows it is is is is multifold. First of all, the letter strikes out on a very front of the letter saying validation notice. Okay, it doesn't say in the back that that's a validation notice. It said in a reference line of letter, it has a computer number, then it says validation notice. So the least sophisticated consumer, which is a standard that we use when evaluating at the FDCPA cases, when you look at this letter, it starts out by saying validation notice. So the least sophisticated consumer is reasonable to believe that this is validation notice after the introductory paragraph

. The next paragraph is the key here. It says that if we can answer any questions for you, comma, or if you feel you do not odys that comma that in both face, please call us at. Then it gives a toll free number in both base or write us at the above address. This is an attempt to collect dead. Any information would be used for that purpose. When you read that sentence, it basically is saying what if you feel that you do not owe this money meaning if you dispute this debt, you have one or two things. Either call us at the toll free 100 number or send us a letter or send us something and writing. That's what it says. Okay, I didn't write the letter. But it doesn't the consumer have a third choice. The consumer can simply rip it up. Now if the consumer simply rips it up, what you can do is so. Well, if the consumer rips it up and doesn't respond to the notice, that allows the debt collected to assume that the debt is valid. Okay, fine. Nevertheless, the consumer can say, well, that's what you think. But you've got to assume but say, but I'm not paying it. So all you can do is assume and then the consumer hasn't lost his defense. What is the consumer says? Hey, they got the wrong person

. Well, you know, it's not what we would do because we're representing a consumer here because the consumer if he didn't respond, he said to himself to being, you know, collected upon a suit or however else could get a hold on collecting that. But nevertheless, in court, he can defend against the debt. I don't know what the judge that's over the judge. I'd say wait a second. This guy is being charged this morning. And he wasn't even the person that's correct. The underlying debt has very little to do with the requirements of the debt collector to provide statutory notice to the consumer. In this case, to provide a notice that is misleading, the consumer cannot dispute the debt by way of telephone quality. You know, the bank circuit in the terrain case, which you're aware of, held that the validation notice is not overshadowed or it's not overshadowed or contradicted. If there's no threat or demand for communication that that overshadows the validation notice, there's nothing here that was threatening or demanding. I agree that that's what that case says, Your Honor. However, that case is not on point with this case and that case is out of the ninth circuit, which doesn't have a grads the annual decision from this court. That case, Terran, dealt with a completely different issue. If you read the case and never even talks about how to dispute the debt, what that case involved was a notice on the debt collection letter, a little blurb that said something to the effect that we request that you contact us immediately and talk to our collection assistant within 30 days. It had nothing to do with disputing the debt and booking the privilege is and the rights on the Native Frederick Collection Act. It simply instructed the client or the debtor to go ahead and call an assistant and I would agree with that court on that issue. But that's not the issue in this case. The issue in this case is whether or not that the consumer has to dispute the other not that the consumer has two choices to admit that it's for disputing the debt, either calling or in writing

. And they only have one choice in this circuit that is to dispute the debt and writing, not the court error by relying upon Terran. Terran's not on point with this and even if it was on point with this, which it's not, they don't have Graziano in here. So it's just per se a violation. It's per se a violation. Even if you follow the logic that the district court took here by saying that it's an invitation to call. Even if you follow that, it's an invitation to do what? It's an invitation to call and dispute the debt. No, no, no, immediately on the same page right there. It's the direct use of the validation requirement. Yes, and that's part of the problem because the front of the letter says it's a valid validation notification. And the back of the letter, there's nothing here to say that that is the validation notice and the back of the letter. And this is a very confusing part of the case to the least sophisticated consumer. The back of the letter does not say that the words back here supersede the words on the front of the letter. But if the front of the letter, it said, look, you can call us and we'll discuss this and we hope you do. Nevertheless, we want to direct your attention that to protect your rights, you have to comply with the, you know, the validation that would have been all right. That would have been all right. You want to some type of safe harbor language, some type of disclosure, would a suffice or they could have just taken that language out. There was no need for them to put into the letter. If you feel you do not, oh, just get please call

. I mean, what did they think was going to happen when they wrote that in the letter? So some person might call up and say, you know, you got the wrong person or something. So it might be a good idea. But, but that still doesn't invoke the rights and their protection. I don't even get these. Okay. Wrong consumers get done all the time by collection agencies, particularly in today's environment. So your worst case scenario is one of your client. Well, you're a class yet. So your client calls on the 29th day. Doesn't speak to someone leaves a message and thinks that because they called based on this letter, they've reserved the right to contest. Or that. And the end of the right to prevent that collective from assuming that that is valid. Okay. And it has to be in writing for that reason because if it's not in writing, then the debt collector doesn't have to fulfill the other obligations. And the other obligations are providing verification of the debt to the consumer as well as provide an in name and address and contact information of the original creditor if it's not the original creditor in the letter. So by not just booting the debt in writing, the consumer is not preserving his right for all the other information that he's entitled to and the responsibilities that the collector has to has to follow. It's confusing between the front of the letter and the back of the letter and that's the problem. The information is not clearly is not clearly given to the consumer and it needs to be clearly given to the consumer

. All the case law and the FDCPA talks about overshadowing it talks about misleading and it talks about it being misleading if what they're saying could have two meetings, one of which is inaccurate. And that's the case here. Well, suppose, suppose your adversary said, look, judge, every call that's made, we for our purposes assume that they haven't weighed any of their rights. And they don't assume that the debt's valid. Well, that would be fact specific and I would say that we would need discovery on that issue and it's not proper to that's the case is not proper to dismiss it on the pleads. Okay, so it hasn't been any discovery done on this issue. But even if that were true, it still doesn't hold that that collected doesn't have the option of rewriting and maneuvering to fair that collection practices act to fit their business model. They have to follow what the act says and the act says they have to give this information clearly and they cannot give it in a misleasing fashion and a formula to assume that they can call is misleading. Well, why can't we conclude on the basis on the basis of law, even with the prior precedence in the circuit that there's nothing threatening in this letter. No, no, saying you got to pay immediately or anything, nothing harassing in that nature. It's merely a way of trying to open up a line of communication and they do refer you to the validation. They could have said that. They could have said that in the letter, but they chose not to. They could have said in the letter exactly what your honor just said, but they chose not to. They chose to put something in the letter that leads the least sophisticated consumer to call rather than write, because it's a toll free number and it's written in both phase and it's not even an option for them. It's not an issue of whether or not the language is threatening and that's the mistake that the district court made by looking at the language and saying it's threatening whether it's threatening or not. That's not the case here. The case here is that the language is misleading

. It misleads a consumer into what they have to do to invoke the rights on the native of DCPA. And no matter how you read the letter, especially the least sophisticated consumer, they're going to read this letter and say, oh, you know what? I don't think I owe this money. What should I do? Well, let me look at the letter. The front of the letter said this is the validation notice. I'm going to do one or two things. I'm going to call or I'm going to write because this letter isn't just an invitation to call. This sentence here is instructions. It's instructions with a condition and the condition is that if you feel you don't hold this step, then follow these steps. And these steps are one to call or two to write and you can't do that in a circuit. This court is ready to sign that. The question, you lost on a judgment on the pleadings and your conclusion asked, we reverse it. Okay, we reverse it. What for what purpose to reinstate the case so you can proceed with it? Or are you asking for an essence? You're almost saying, look, I went on the liability on the basis of the pleadings. Well, I mean, I mean, I mean, type of cases, these FD CPA cases, okay, that are basically treated as a strict liability statute. You lose on the motion to play if they were to lose a motion on the pleadings, we would still have to have some discovery do a class discovery things that I need to do. So we just made it for a, for the back of the trial calendar, we would just pick up where we were we left off. And the answer has been filed, discovery has not happened yet, we would need to do some discovery, we would need to prove class, you know, in order to get class certification, and then we would move forward from there. Thank you

. Thank you. Good afternoon, Your Honors. My name is Richard Parr on behalf of Healthcare Revenue Recovery Group, which I will refer to as HRRG. Your Honors, and we ask that the court affirm the decision of the district court in this matter. The, this court can affirm the decision of the district court without having to address the issue of Graziano. In taking a look at the letter that's in question, and the court's already indicated that the very straightforward letter, the validation language exists, the precedent of this court has already been the validation. The validation on the back, that's, that's number one, and you put the phone number up front, and you both face the front of the letter. Yes, Your Honor, the validation language and having a notice, and a clear and conspicuous notice, there's no dispute that this was a clear and conspicuous notice as opposed to the rest of the document. It's in capital letters, it's immediately in that paragraph. Notice, see reverse side for important information. And on the back of the letter, by itself, is centered in very large print. Yeah, but you're bold on the first page is the phone number. You want people to call calling doesn't comply with the law of this circuit. That's a problem. How do you get around it? There are two things, Your Honor. Let me first state that it is clear under the Federal Trade Commission, under the FDCPA, that collection activity can continue. This is sending a letter doesn't stop collection activity, and there is a distinction between communication between a consumer and an agency trying to resolve the debt versus the consumer's desire to dispute the debt. And I'll get into specifically what does that mean because I think it's very important that the court understand under the statutory scheme, what is disputing the debt

. This is why I say that Graziano doesn't really come into play here. And having a conversation to resolve the debt and that activity can plainly proceed. The consumer can call up and say, you know what, I don't think I owe $1,500, I only owe $750. Let's talk about a payment plan. But why do we follow the fourth circuit, which they held that putting the telephone number on the front with at least a sophisticated consumer, emphasized the structural consumer about, you know, call if you have a problem to dispute the debt. And in the back you put the validation. So the dealing with someone who's not sophisticated, you put the phone number, his ball face on front. Is that, does that tell someone I call back? I think I don't know this or they got the wrong guy. No, you're out of it because the, the requirement of a certain hell just that, you know. I understand you're out of it, but, but you have to take a look at the everything in the context of the facts. First of all, in the least sophisticated consumer standard, this consumer still has to read it with care. They still have to read the letter in its entirety. You can't take something piecemeal and just ignore it. Why did you bolt it then? Well, because you want to call, they're permitted to call just as much as we're permitted to say, please pay immediately. Like Wilson, but the validation notice, first of all, caps, the validation notice is on the back side. It's in very large print by itself. But it's not ball face. Both faces is something super important. No, in the telephone number, the name of the creditor is in bold face. Validation notice at the top is in bold face. The validation is on the back. You know, in determining or trying to decide which form of communication, whether things were in bold face, is it capital is better than not? There's nothing bold on the second on the back. I understand I said that the back is by itself all set out and it is in larger print. But what's important in this is that if you look at section G, 1692, J, it establishes a couple different obligations under A. And this is where I'm going to talk a little bit about Graziano, where Graziano comes into play. Traditionally, the statement says, as written by Congress, that under section A, G, A, three, that it has to include a statement that unless the consumer within 30 days have to receive disputes, the validity of debt, or any portion thereof, the debt will assume to be valid. Now this court has determined in Graziano that the, that there's a writing requirement that accompanies section three. But it further goes on and says that the statement within writing within the 30 day period that in order for the debt collector to obtain verification, it also says that if they do so in writing, the consumer can obtain the name and address of the original creditor. So, when you go to section B, disputed debts. Congress has set forth what happens when in writing, you dispute the debt under section four or section five. It already talks about what happens in section three, which is this assumption that the debt is valid. And I would submit to the court that the protections afforded to the consumer by section G about the assumption of the debt being valued valid has little commercial impact, whether the company or the collector assumes it to be valid or not to be valid, is doesn't change the dynamic in the relationship between the consumer and the collector. However, if in writing under sections, is that the test whether it changes the dynamic or is the test whether the leased sophisticated consumer understands his or her rights and understands that if they call that that doesn't comply with the back of the notice or and it doesn't comply with what the law of the circuit is. It does matter, Your Honor, because what the test here is is overshadowing. So you have to ultimately come back to what are you what is overshadowing, which is incurred somebody to ignore their rights and what is the result of that going to be. And all of the cases that talk about overshadowing is is that conflict between one portion and another portion

. No, in the telephone number, the name of the creditor is in bold face. Validation notice at the top is in bold face. The validation is on the back. You know, in determining or trying to decide which form of communication, whether things were in bold face, is it capital is better than not? There's nothing bold on the second on the back. I understand I said that the back is by itself all set out and it is in larger print. But what's important in this is that if you look at section G, 1692, J, it establishes a couple different obligations under A. And this is where I'm going to talk a little bit about Graziano, where Graziano comes into play. Traditionally, the statement says, as written by Congress, that under section A, G, A, three, that it has to include a statement that unless the consumer within 30 days have to receive disputes, the validity of debt, or any portion thereof, the debt will assume to be valid. Now this court has determined in Graziano that the, that there's a writing requirement that accompanies section three. But it further goes on and says that the statement within writing within the 30 day period that in order for the debt collector to obtain verification, it also says that if they do so in writing, the consumer can obtain the name and address of the original creditor. So, when you go to section B, disputed debts. Congress has set forth what happens when in writing, you dispute the debt under section four or section five. It already talks about what happens in section three, which is this assumption that the debt is valid. And I would submit to the court that the protections afforded to the consumer by section G about the assumption of the debt being valued valid has little commercial impact, whether the company or the collector assumes it to be valid or not to be valid, is doesn't change the dynamic in the relationship between the consumer and the collector. However, if in writing under sections, is that the test whether it changes the dynamic or is the test whether the leased sophisticated consumer understands his or her rights and understands that if they call that that doesn't comply with the back of the notice or and it doesn't comply with what the law of the circuit is. It does matter, Your Honor, because what the test here is is overshadowing. So you have to ultimately come back to what are you what is overshadowing, which is incurred somebody to ignore their rights and what is the result of that going to be. And all of the cases that talk about overshadowing is is that conflict between one portion and another portion. So if the requirement of in writing and inviting somebody to communicate with you is really in fact the question of the debt being assumed to be valid or not and we're going to have to apply that test of saying is it overshadowed by saying call us and it doesn't say call us if you don't owe this debt. Yeah, it says the call us if you don't owe this amount. I think that's an important word as well because amount could mean the dollar amount of the debt doesn't say if you wanted to skew the debt if you don't think you owe the debt. It says call us if we can answer any questions or you feel you don't owe this amount. So when you have the back of the sentence, let me just jump back to the B section. What B says is that if you dispute the debt in writing, okay, the collector must cease collection activity until they either provide the verification as outlined in A4 or they return and provide the name of the original creditor as in A5. So A4 and 5 if you receive a written notice under A4 or 5 the collector must cease collection activity and all of these cases that talk about verification and validation and overshadowing and they're all different and the reason than this circuit because of Graziano which which drives in A3. But the statutory scheme under B applies to 4 and 5. So the question and it even says but I don't get it for the talks about in writing. Correct. But it refers to only 4 and 5 it doesn't refer to 3. So 4 and 5 the cessation of collection activity has to be in writing. So what I'm trying to get to is that in order to cease collection activity which is the remedy that would be provide a protection to the consumer, you must provide it in writing anyway. It is irrelevant whether you wish to dispute under A3 by phone and other circuits or in this circuit in writing. The fact is if you dispute in writing under A3 and are not requesting verification or not requesting that the writing requirement is the automatic trigger and that is not confusing. It is not overshadowing by that one sentence in the first page that that person still must provide in writing in order to cease collection activity. They still must provide it in writing. That is not confusing

. So if the requirement of in writing and inviting somebody to communicate with you is really in fact the question of the debt being assumed to be valid or not and we're going to have to apply that test of saying is it overshadowed by saying call us and it doesn't say call us if you don't owe this debt. Yeah, it says the call us if you don't owe this amount. I think that's an important word as well because amount could mean the dollar amount of the debt doesn't say if you wanted to skew the debt if you don't think you owe the debt. It says call us if we can answer any questions or you feel you don't owe this amount. So when you have the back of the sentence, let me just jump back to the B section. What B says is that if you dispute the debt in writing, okay, the collector must cease collection activity until they either provide the verification as outlined in A4 or they return and provide the name of the original creditor as in A5. So A4 and 5 if you receive a written notice under A4 or 5 the collector must cease collection activity and all of these cases that talk about verification and validation and overshadowing and they're all different and the reason than this circuit because of Graziano which which drives in A3. But the statutory scheme under B applies to 4 and 5. So the question and it even says but I don't get it for the talks about in writing. Correct. But it refers to only 4 and 5 it doesn't refer to 3. So 4 and 5 the cessation of collection activity has to be in writing. So what I'm trying to get to is that in order to cease collection activity which is the remedy that would be provide a protection to the consumer, you must provide it in writing anyway. It is irrelevant whether you wish to dispute under A3 by phone and other circuits or in this circuit in writing. The fact is if you dispute in writing under A3 and are not requesting verification or not requesting that the writing requirement is the automatic trigger and that is not confusing. It is not overshadowing by that one sentence in the first page that that person still must provide in writing in order to cease collection activity. They still must provide it in writing. That is not confusing. It is not overshadowing and there is no problem with the letter. Your whole argument that you're looking at your distressing invitation or you're opening up a lot of communication. Doesn't that come up against who would be the most least sophisticated consumer? They don't fake those terms. They get a letter, a ball face on front, this is the number. It is legal of Momo Jumbo and on the back is the validation notice which is later on. You talk about a list of sophisticated person and there is a phone number up front in your face. Yes, Your Honor. Let me talk about that briefly about the list of sophisticated consumer. Because you're on our scenario, practice in this area as Mr. Jones almost entirely had arguments here before this court. I think that the issue is the least sophisticated consumer, least sophisticated modifies consumer. I don't think there's a court in the country who a circuit that would suggest that the consumer is somebody who is not bound by the contract of the original creditor. They have the capacity to contract. This is a remedial statute. This statute is remedial and your argument doesn't take that into account. They are at least sophisticated consumer. They still have the sophistication of someone who engages in a personal credit transaction who understands the underlying language. The underlying contract, the underlying contract that created the debt, they're still bound by that

. It is not overshadowing and there is no problem with the letter. Your whole argument that you're looking at your distressing invitation or you're opening up a lot of communication. Doesn't that come up against who would be the most least sophisticated consumer? They don't fake those terms. They get a letter, a ball face on front, this is the number. It is legal of Momo Jumbo and on the back is the validation notice which is later on. You talk about a list of sophisticated person and there is a phone number up front in your face. Yes, Your Honor. Let me talk about that briefly about the list of sophisticated consumer. Because you're on our scenario, practice in this area as Mr. Jones almost entirely had arguments here before this court. I think that the issue is the least sophisticated consumer, least sophisticated modifies consumer. I don't think there's a court in the country who a circuit that would suggest that the consumer is somebody who is not bound by the contract of the original creditor. They have the capacity to contract. This is a remedial statute. This statute is remedial and your argument doesn't take that into account. They are at least sophisticated consumer. They still have the sophistication of someone who engages in a personal credit transaction who understands the underlying language. The underlying contract, the underlying contract that created the debt, they're still bound by that. The word consumer is important. They are still a consumer. And the least sophisticated consumer still has to read the whole letter with care. They still have to read it and can't provide bizarre and idiosyncratic. When you read an opinion of this court or any court and some of it is ball-faced and some of it is plain print, do you give any extra consideration to what we ball-faced and from what we just put in plain print? Yes or no? Yes, if there's a different test. Why wouldn't the least sophisticated consumer give the same difference to a letter collecting something's ball-faced? It's more important, more significant, than something that's in plain print. Because a highly sophisticated, educated man would give the ball-faced portion of an opinion extra understanding as important. Two reasons, Your Honor. First of all, I don't ignore the rest of the opinion. I do so at my own power. What are the value pay more attention to the ball-faced part of our opinion? And the second portion of it is Your Honor. Yes, Your Honor. And the second portion of that is because the word is overshadowed, just like the term undue influence in other areas of the law. You can still have influence in a case, but if a piece of evidence has undue influence, something extra, something beyond, then it may become impermissible. So the language is overshadowed, means to do something and in a lot of these cases it's to compel the consumer to ignore their rights at their own peril. But I'm just trying to settle a case and respond to a settlement demanded 14 days when they have 30 days. This language does not overshadow the validation language, and that's the ultimate test. Aren't you really modifying the statutory requirements by having the notice worded as you do because statute obviously requires writing

. The word consumer is important. They are still a consumer. And the least sophisticated consumer still has to read the whole letter with care. They still have to read it and can't provide bizarre and idiosyncratic. When you read an opinion of this court or any court and some of it is ball-faced and some of it is plain print, do you give any extra consideration to what we ball-faced and from what we just put in plain print? Yes or no? Yes, if there's a different test. Why wouldn't the least sophisticated consumer give the same difference to a letter collecting something's ball-faced? It's more important, more significant, than something that's in plain print. Because a highly sophisticated, educated man would give the ball-faced portion of an opinion extra understanding as important. Two reasons, Your Honor. First of all, I don't ignore the rest of the opinion. I do so at my own power. What are the value pay more attention to the ball-faced part of our opinion? And the second portion of it is Your Honor. Yes, Your Honor. And the second portion of that is because the word is overshadowed, just like the term undue influence in other areas of the law. You can still have influence in a case, but if a piece of evidence has undue influence, something extra, something beyond, then it may become impermissible. So the language is overshadowed, means to do something and in a lot of these cases it's to compel the consumer to ignore their rights at their own peril. But I'm just trying to settle a case and respond to a settlement demanded 14 days when they have 30 days. This language does not overshadow the validation language, and that's the ultimate test. Aren't you really modifying the statutory requirements by having the notice worded as you do because statute obviously requires writing. You're implying to the certainly my understanding of a lease sophisticated consumer that calling will suffice that whatever it is that they would have gotten from writing they can get from calling. No, at no point does this letter tell someone not to call. I mean, not to write. In fact, it tells you at the end of that sentence to see the reverse side for important information and provides the language telling them to write if they want to affect. Reading into it, the court is and the statutory scheme suggests that the consumer understands that by writing they are going to cease collection activity after 30 days. Within the 30 days, they're going to be able to cease collection activity until they receive validation of the death. So the situation is that no one has been told not to write to have that protection afforded to them. It goes back to you. You're still entitled to be able to communicate with the consumer to collect the debt. That process doesn't stop. It doesn't cease until they provide a writing. That's the law. So, Grasiano doesn't change that. They still have to provide the writing. And in order for them to cease collection activity, they have to provide a writing. HRG could have called the consumer the day after they received this letter and said, are you interested in paying the debt? Not a problem. If the consumer on the phone said, I'm not really interested in paying you or what can I do? And said, I really wanted to dispute it. That doesn't create them because they made the initiated the call to tell them, we got to stop collection activity

. You're implying to the certainly my understanding of a lease sophisticated consumer that calling will suffice that whatever it is that they would have gotten from writing they can get from calling. No, at no point does this letter tell someone not to call. I mean, not to write. In fact, it tells you at the end of that sentence to see the reverse side for important information and provides the language telling them to write if they want to affect. Reading into it, the court is and the statutory scheme suggests that the consumer understands that by writing they are going to cease collection activity after 30 days. Within the 30 days, they're going to be able to cease collection activity until they receive validation of the death. So the situation is that no one has been told not to write to have that protection afforded to them. It goes back to you. You're still entitled to be able to communicate with the consumer to collect the debt. That process doesn't stop. It doesn't cease until they provide a writing. That's the law. So, Grasiano doesn't change that. They still have to provide the writing. And in order for them to cease collection activity, they have to provide a writing. HRG could have called the consumer the day after they received this letter and said, are you interested in paying the debt? Not a problem. If the consumer on the phone said, I'm not really interested in paying you or what can I do? And said, I really wanted to dispute it. That doesn't create them because they made the initiated the call to tell them, we got to stop collection activity. The letter is clear. You have to do it in writing. And HRG and any other agency is not prohibited from engaging in that back and forth dialogue to resolve the debt. What this does is tell the consumer to stop collection activity. They have to do it in writing. It's on the letter. It's not overshadowed the initial sentence. And for those reasons, the decision of the district court should be affirmed. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Jones. It's very quickly about the least sophisticated consumer. The least sophisticated consumer understands the underlying contract that created the debt. In a situation like we have here, this is a case where the gentleman's young child was rushed to the emergency room. You see, if you're at the emergency room and didn't pay a bill, I don't know if when he rushed in to the emergency room with the child in his arms. He read the fine print on whatever he signed in the admission process. So just assume they understand isn't necessarily true

. The letter is clear. You have to do it in writing. And HRG and any other agency is not prohibited from engaging in that back and forth dialogue to resolve the debt. What this does is tell the consumer to stop collection activity. They have to do it in writing. It's on the letter. It's not overshadowed the initial sentence. And for those reasons, the decision of the district court should be affirmed. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Jones. It's very quickly about the least sophisticated consumer. The least sophisticated consumer understands the underlying contract that created the debt. In a situation like we have here, this is a case where the gentleman's young child was rushed to the emergency room. You see, if you're at the emergency room and didn't pay a bill, I don't know if when he rushed in to the emergency room with the child in his arms. He read the fine print on whatever he signed in the admission process. So just assume they understand isn't necessarily true. There's a difference between disputing. I was a little bit on the other day. If I read it all, I would have bled the death. He started. That I understand. That's good. That's why I want to go. The issue also with the amount, by opposing counsel, that they could dispute the amount or the account or portion of the fair debt collection practice that that notice on the back required notice allows the consumer to dispute not just the debt in its entirety or any portion of the debt. They may think, well, I don't owe $1,500. I owe $1,200. Or I don't know any of it. Or they got the wrong party or they just dispute. I shouldn't have to pay it at all. So it isn't just a matter of calling to debate with the debt collector about the amount that's due. It's whether or not they think they owe the debt or any portion of the rub. If they wanted to dispute that, they have a right to dispute it. In order for them to invoke those rights, they have to do it by writing. They cannot call

. There's a difference between disputing. I was a little bit on the other day. If I read it all, I would have bled the death. He started. That I understand. That's good. That's why I want to go. The issue also with the amount, by opposing counsel, that they could dispute the amount or the account or portion of the fair debt collection practice that that notice on the back required notice allows the consumer to dispute not just the debt in its entirety or any portion of the debt. They may think, well, I don't owe $1,500. I owe $1,200. Or I don't know any of it. Or they got the wrong party or they just dispute. I shouldn't have to pay it at all. So it isn't just a matter of calling to debate with the debt collector about the amount that's due. It's whether or not they think they owe the debt or any portion of the rub. If they wanted to dispute that, they have a right to dispute it. In order for them to invoke those rights, they have to do it by writing. They cannot call. This concept that, even if the consumer rights to them, that activity stops. That's not necessarily true. The purpose of the consumer dispute in the debt is not just to stop the collection activity. It's also to prevent the debt collected from assuming that the debt is valid. And if you read the first line of the G-notes, it talks about if you just be able to dispute with the 30 days of the data receded to this letter, this debt or any portion thereof, we will assume it's valid. Well, that's the first part. Yes, they get the other protections of getting verification. And yes, the debt collector has to stop reaching out to the consumer to collect the debt during that period of 20th-by-verification. But the consumer never gets a second chance to prevent the debt collected from assuming the debt is valid. So if they don't respond properly within 30 days and that's in writing, that cannot over the telephone. The back of the letter is problematic. It's not that the front of the letter overshadows the back because it does. It's also misleading when you read the front and conjunction with the back. And this least sophisticated consumer should read. It hopefully reads the entire letter. And if they do, it becomes even more confusing because the back of the letter does not state that it supersedes the notice on the front of the letter. The back of the letter does not state the follow these instructions and don't follow the instructions on the front of the letter. The back of the letter doesn't state that this is an imp, that the front of the letter is only an invitation to call

. This concept that, even if the consumer rights to them, that activity stops. That's not necessarily true. The purpose of the consumer dispute in the debt is not just to stop the collection activity. It's also to prevent the debt collected from assuming that the debt is valid. And if you read the first line of the G-notes, it talks about if you just be able to dispute with the 30 days of the data receded to this letter, this debt or any portion thereof, we will assume it's valid. Well, that's the first part. Yes, they get the other protections of getting verification. And yes, the debt collector has to stop reaching out to the consumer to collect the debt during that period of 20th-by-verification. But the consumer never gets a second chance to prevent the debt collected from assuming the debt is valid. So if they don't respond properly within 30 days and that's in writing, that cannot over the telephone. The back of the letter is problematic. It's not that the front of the letter overshadows the back because it does. It's also misleading when you read the front and conjunction with the back. And this least sophisticated consumer should read. It hopefully reads the entire letter. And if they do, it becomes even more confusing because the back of the letter does not state that it supersedes the notice on the front of the letter. The back of the letter does not state the follow these instructions and don't follow the instructions on the front of the letter. The back of the letter doesn't state that this is an imp, that the front of the letter is only an invitation to call. Rather than the back of the letter contradicts the front of the letter. The back of the letter says one thing. And the front of the letter says something else. And we're asking the least sophisticated consumer to understand this contradiction, choose the right one. And choose the right one that's going to involve them, pick it up a pen and paper, writing, spending 45 cents. Put a stamp on an envelope and sending it in as opposed to reading what's in both face and saying, please call within 800 number, whether more or after calling 800 number. So our position is that the letter is misleading. It the front of the shadows the back and the front and the back contradict each other when read as a whole. Thank you. We also, you also in her and it would have been so easy for them to avoid it. One more sentence on the front saying you should understand that if you want to protect your rights, you better follow the back. They could have used that type of language, some say, part of the language and they chose not to. And I think they chose not to for reason because as as Judge Greenway said, they want the client, they want the debt, they want the debtor to call. And it's their way of getting a debtor call. Thank you. All right. Thank you very much and thank you for well-argued case. We'll take it under advisement