Legal Case Summary

The world's last case for today sings versus temple university. Good morning, I am Anthony the Corbin. It's kind of a great recording. Francis and I are now representing your car, Edward Siemens. My man was a three-hand store ball this time. That's great. Thank you. It's an interviewer, earning rising so many jobs in two-step-all. Because it is interpreted in higher education at the ADA to exam temple, from its responsibilities under the Fair Court Reporting Act, or the FCI. The relevant meeting question by the ADA however has no effect on the fair, on the temple responsibilities under the Fair Court. We're going to have to figure out what the interplay is between the Fair Court Reporting Act and the ADA. Are you saying that the ADA has no application whatsoever in this case? It's basically relevant. Under the fact that this case, you're on the answer to that question, yes. Okay. And it's primarily because first, the statute itself explicitly applies only to consider Canadian seats

. And it is, I am thinking, you should be careful as not to consider more Canadian seats. And second, the statute's effect on the time period is allowed for the reporting of Williams-Lomit in Pollution last only until the loan is paid in full. And it is understood that the time is just seems to stew the account question, the loan would already be paid in full. So the ADA does have an effect then, right? No, the ADA would not be in effect at the time is just as understood. The SCRA's provisions would be in effect at that time. The same new period, correct your honor under Section C-H4, for which we now apply for collections. And so what would be allowed in May of 2011, he pays the reporting of the Howl-Long-Tray-Long-Sail under the ADA or SCRA each other's dashes. You don't know what your face is. And that's one time the trade collection of our reviews. Why is it that it has indication that it just disappeared? Why should it remain as primitive as a serious sort of an adverse event? Because it should be shut right a time for the past before the system can be paid. Right, so if you are on the statute, the Section C of the SCRA accounts for two of the circumstances. One is the count points for collections. Two is for other adverse information. The facts of this case were flat to the discount

. What was the planning videos of the account, based on the account, based on the collection? The account records from the face of the R-R-B would reference to the fact that it isn't an account, based on the collection. So Section C-A-4 is time to be instructed by and not the different analysis, which might be given up the other section, A-C-A-5. So it's understood for it's seven years in the collection, which is nineteen ninety two. It's from the day of postal inequality, also under name days. It also would be seven years from the day of postal inequality and a calculation, and it includes under name day, between two or seven and a half years approximately. So in this scenario, what would that bring us to nineteen ninety nine? That would bring us to approximately nineteen ninety nine. And if it were nineteen ninety nine, are you saying that it should have come off the report and should never have appeared? I'm saying it's possible, it may, it's possible in nineteen ninety nine, depending on what the fast-forward minute that time, and that the account could have continued to be reported. Still into the A-G-A's, the exemption for credit report, in A-G-A-6. Okay. However, under the circumstances of twenty eleven, does that be case? But isn't that the part of the motivation of the district court's decision that the H-A-M-A-L-A, the credit agency to continue to report it? And that's why there's no harm under me, silly. Well, you're not, that's not rules. That's not the facts that the time Mr. Seen is just good. So the analysis is that he conducted, that the time Mr

. Seen's disputes, because that's where the temporal obligation, taking that to reasonable investigation arises. So, in maybe, the facts make you different, and there was only a different, a different period of time. But in May, and always the twenty eleven, we're talking about an account that was being full, and therefore the S-E-R-A is really the only available statute, and analyzing whether or not what Teppel did was reasonable under use. In May of twenty eleven, what could have been the mean on the uptrave line under the S-E-R-A, anything? If the account was properly reported by Teppel, it would have informed the credit agencies to remove the account from Mr. Seen's credit reports. But the S-E-R-A, I'm sorry, the credit agency could have left it if it chose to under the S-E-R-A for seven years. Is that right? I know that if Teppels are properly reported, it's properly reported first to linguistics. At the time Teppel responded to that dispute, it responded with that information. It should have informed the credit report agencies to remove the account from Mr. Seen's credit. And I'm fast and simple with that. The testimony of Tepp Transean's representative, the front, that Transean was to the data verse, the one that was being asked to be the account. From what are his standard that, come on, that version, they're fully aware of you because you're the only data verse, the one that gets it. So you say, industry standards, you talk about that manual? The senior manual, yes, Ron

. How is that persuasive in this case? There's a really many more persuasive than any other opinion of any brief. It's not a force of law or anything. I hear you, I don't know if it doesn't have force of law, but it certainly speaks to the understanding that first you must have in terms of how to shoot or report information back to consumer police agencies. This is the instruction manual that the consumer police agencies give two parts of credit information to assist them in how to respond. That document is removed with the advancements that the data verse, the frequency, is resumed to determine when information becomes obsolete. And it's specifically instructs and tortures to report that information to the consumer police. Can you just ask you, hypothetically, if your client never paid the loan back, how long can you continue on his credit report? Forever, right? Correct. Assuming that the HGA was in a certain status. Why wouldn't you apply? Well, you're under a constant record. The record is for the HGA to pronounce the, if you look further back in the statute, there must be some agreement between Apple and the consumer police agencies. So it's a sign that it's all a sign that it's assumed it's a purpose loan and all that? Correct. Assuming that as the case, any HGA does apply, and Mr. Simmons did not pay back. That loan is unpaid

. That account of their loan hypothetically cuts down as reported heavily. And is it, is it, conceited in this case that the HGA did apply up until the court of time that the loan was paid? I don't know the answer to that question, but it's a thing even between Apple and the government to do this to any information during the discovery of what the court did wasn't agreement. There are also no evidence to suggest that the critical interagency were otherwise followed the HGA with respect to the account of the question. So the doubt that, if you had the tackle in terms of whether or not it was actually applying before Mr. Simmons. How did the district court hear all that? I didn't realize this was really an issue. I didn't the district court assume that the HGA applied? I think it did. The loan is clear. You are the HGA, if the HGA is a particular, the only consideration remains as one of the serial questions of fact exist to the court of inclusion of Apple, the un-English and we verbally felt in the reasonable investigation. The answer to that question is yes, this substantial record exists to the court of inclusion that Apple's investigations were unreasonable. You see it's an issue of fact. Yes, I do. There are more key pieces of information that Apple failed to report on to a dispute. First, I'm going to discuss this in a while already

. It failed or the day of first or when could see? Second, it failed to modify the account status. Third, it failed to modify the human history. And fourth, it failed to report the account as disputed. The consequences of the temperance failures are evident. One, it can see the fact that the account you removed from life's grip, but from Mr. Simmons credit reports. And two, if Oscar is Mr. Simmons would like to have the account report as disputed. Now, what are the damages in this case? Are there statutory damages? There are statutory damages if the account status is considered well over. Plates also claim national damages for lost credit opportunities and for not getting under the debt, but even such as damage to reputation and emotional distress. You believe it doesn't seem to address the negligent occupants by pursuing this thing? Or are you going to lay out of the real form? I don't know. I'll poke the areas down. Even though the truth didn't really address the district courts, did not I allow that? What is going to be on the other hand, we've done the justice because what we do pull out is we've reversed to the temperance failures and through reporting this information. It's underlining conducts

. It's beautiful. If you know vastness of this conduct is very unreasonable. First and foremost, the information that's had the failure of the work was clearly on the accounts that were just due to the processor, did not indicate further than her computer screened to find information that the failure of the work was on the RFI. So they screened with a reflective both the presence of a dispute together with the data first-linked. The screen would have easily identified the data first-linked. They would have easily identified the accounts' points for questions. In fact, the disproven processor during the deposition had no control finding that within our seconds. Furthermore, it testified that the motion never went as an effort. On the other hand, the opposition, it's quite a big reason to claim is that just compared to ACS is just not enough. More than that, there are. Taking into ACS is just not enough given the fact that Temple had no understanding of the procedures that they were following. And the number I really appreciate what I was doing or not doing. But on the other hand, what we found is that at a narrow policy, Temple was not reporting a data first-linked. For example, at a time that needs to be squeezed, they were not reporting the accounts as dispute

. Now, other circuits such as the 6th circuit and the podium, now we find that a question has to be negligent and is existed. But also a question has to be given. The damage has existed when there is evidence to show that there are policies and effects that would frustrate the system DSLR. Which I think is happening here because the testimony suggests that there are policies to narrow up the data first-linked and narrow up the accounts dispute. You are the... The ACM really has police at its table, you are for considering what a temple felt that can fly with its duties. And with the ACA, all the people that have a picture, the picture is clear. There are all kinds of questions of facts that exist. That's the way the network, the temple may be, all the fully built and built in recent more investigations. To put that reason, we are asking a court to reverse and the random cases of the picture call for the third time. Oh, that's where proof is on, I'll work. Thank you

. I'll answer your vote if you can address the realfulness issue too. That'd be great. I'll do it. Thank you. Good morning, Your Honor. I'm Schwochnert, the president of the House of the Haths at the University. May it please the court. The intent of Congress, the express intent of Congress in this case, could not be clear, particularly as it pertains to student loans. Congress has set forth a very well thought-out scheme related to the collection and repainted student loans throughout the legal spectrum. In the HGA, the Higher Education Act, it expressly sets forth an issue dealing with credit reporting under 1087 CC, also under 10AA, given the other session of student loans. Congress has established an embankment site, and you cannot discharge a student loan under less under the most extreme circumstances. Congress has also established that there is no statute of limitations in terms of being painted of student loans, and that any state loan burning, a statute of limitations or contract is void. Congress has done this as it expressed in the amendments to the HGA because they wanted to make it extremely clear, you have to repay the student loans, you cannot made out the clock, and avoid regulations, and it will appear on the credit report, for as long as you don't pay it. What you have in this case is a very unique conversion between the HGA and the Fair Credit Report Act

. It is clear, and I am not going to be certain facts, because if this is a credit card or another transaction, the responsibility of the reporting would be clear. If it was in the collections, there is no question that the explanation of a seven year period is time, they wouldn't fall off. The rest of the treatment that the report is inaccurate, but for the HGA's application. What I believe is that you are not an author, it is not an actor, because of the HGA. Okay, because it is not true, the student loan is not treated like a credit card, like a medical debt, or like any other transaction. So you are suggesting that the HGA allows a few discussions on inaccuracies? That the definition of what's accurate or what's inaccurate changes for student loans. If something is in collection or something has been bullied, how should it matter whether to student loan naggles the subject at the pin who the collection activity? Because what happens to affect a boat is language, and the specific language of a total disloyal is paid in full. Has the effect of taking that period of the repayment, that's hot. We see what the student loan with the paying, with the student loan, what you have a credit report is a traditional context of the period of repayment. At which time, a conclusion of repayment would always be a positive status as far as the account status, and if the court would. At that important point, time for a look at the credit report in this case, and it's at a record of an A-254, another copy of A-265, you'll see that the credit report contains in essence for a process of this case two distinct key elements. The first of which is the account status, and at the end of the course of the loan, it's going to say the account status is paid, it's overdue, it's not fulfilled. At the completion of the loan process, it says paid in full. Well, let me start with the input between these two statutes. You say 1087 CC, I guess it's C3, where it mentions 681C, 4 and 5, okay? It doesn't just deal with the time periods, that's not that, you're assigning quite a lot of weight to that particular reception of 1087 CC, C3. I think in the opposite, we read that as well, it says that 101C, 4 and 5 say 7 years, this particular section says notwithstanding those two sections, it's until the loan is paid. You're saying it has even more significance, it deals with reporting requirements, and in other things, something more than just the time period? The time period is when these beings, what will say is the giving and unity, so see the loan will fall, right? That's what the significance of the time period is, right? Correct, an international credit account, a circumstance, if you were to file a date at the loan, you would say, as a practical pattern, it's testified by these three and the transfer unit numbers, in this case, the account will run off someone's credit report, after 7 years from the day of 1st and I could say, this new survey about that, we all debate that issue. So, when these have been started, Perkins, no idea, I'm sorry, right? Unless it's a Perkins, no idea, the requirements of the AGA. Correct, and how does the practical question is, how does that not run off of a credit report? The general law of the assistance of the law, this works, is that there is a reasonable gain of the link of C, that is provided to the credit bureaus, during this period of time. But if you gave them, if you didn't the link of C, while the loan was still unpaid, it would run through the fall-offs automatically, if you provided code 93, which is the B. collections code, in active, account does not be paid at fall. In the fall-off, in this case, 1999, so you were willing to not be repaid in the fall-off. What Congress has done with the expressly state, when they handed the AGA to how the session was, you can't do that. So what they have directed is, you are provided the link of C, you are provided anything that deals with the words, collections with the same collections, to the credit report of your own during this period of time, because if you did, in the fall-off, you would defeat the incentive Congress, to have this remaining loan, you are provided the report during the entire repaying period. Most of it was the dispute, the fact that it was in dispute, that for some reason the students saw that on the cut-out loan a dollar an hour and filed this and really distributed to the wrong number. Is there an obligation to stick to correct that? Yes, in the case of law, in the circuit, and elsewhere, it's pretty clear that you take a loan of the dispute, what's being distributed, and responsibility to that front share under S2W, and it's really easy to respond to exactly what is being distributed. So here we have a scenario where there wasn't dispute, I'll be reading May 2011, that period of time, it doesn't appear on the report, where the policy was for not to be recorded, quotas it, this quote says it, and quotas it, the common information, and we expect to be on the report, right? Isn't that a problem? Protect the AGA. Okay, let's assume that a pause in this scenario

. You say 1087 CC, I guess it's C3, where it mentions 681C, 4 and 5, okay? It doesn't just deal with the time periods, that's not that, you're assigning quite a lot of weight to that particular reception of 1087 CC, C3. I think in the opposite, we read that as well, it says that 101C, 4 and 5 say 7 years, this particular section says notwithstanding those two sections, it's until the loan is paid. You're saying it has even more significance, it deals with reporting requirements, and in other things, something more than just the time period? The time period is when these beings, what will say is the giving and unity, so see the loan will fall, right? That's what the significance of the time period is, right? Correct, an international credit account, a circumstance, if you were to file a date at the loan, you would say, as a practical pattern, it's testified by these three and the transfer unit numbers, in this case, the account will run off someone's credit report, after 7 years from the day of 1st and I could say, this new survey about that, we all debate that issue. So, when these have been started, Perkins, no idea, I'm sorry, right? Unless it's a Perkins, no idea, the requirements of the AGA. Correct, and how does the practical question is, how does that not run off of a credit report? The general law of the assistance of the law, this works, is that there is a reasonable gain of the link of C, that is provided to the credit bureaus, during this period of time. But if you gave them, if you didn't the link of C, while the loan was still unpaid, it would run through the fall-offs automatically, if you provided code 93, which is the B. collections code, in active, account does not be paid at fall. In the fall-off, in this case, 1999, so you were willing to not be repaid in the fall-off. What Congress has done with the expressly state, when they handed the AGA to how the session was, you can't do that. So what they have directed is, you are provided the link of C, you are provided anything that deals with the words, collections with the same collections, to the credit report of your own during this period of time, because if you did, in the fall-off, you would defeat the incentive Congress, to have this remaining loan, you are provided the report during the entire repaying period. Most of it was the dispute, the fact that it was in dispute, that for some reason the students saw that on the cut-out loan a dollar an hour and filed this and really distributed to the wrong number. Is there an obligation to stick to correct that? Yes, in the case of law, in the circuit, and elsewhere, it's pretty clear that you take a loan of the dispute, what's being distributed, and responsibility to that front share under S2W, and it's really easy to respond to exactly what is being distributed. So here we have a scenario where there wasn't dispute, I'll be reading May 2011, that period of time, it doesn't appear on the report, where the policy was for not to be recorded, quotas it, this quote says it, and quotas it, the common information, and we expect to be on the report, right? Isn't that a problem? Protect the AGA. Okay, let's assume that a pause in this scenario. No, because, okay, you started to start an accuracy report. No, I'm, and reason is because you have to take a look at the circumstance and the snapshot at that moment of time, that dispute comes in and what Mr. Seam's dispute is, A, the trade line was on as your court, for some inexplicable reason, and there was no record evidence that, tell us why, why not? So it was a period of time during the payment, which appears that Mr. Seam's did not have this trade line at all on his credit report. So what happens is, he pays the loan, and then, in quotas was statute, that what the quotas it had in the A, and when it was the quote, the quote's trade line now is on his credit report, and this is what the second. I've just kept here, it hasn't been on here for years, and Mr. Seam says this hasn't been on one trade report for years. How come it's here? Seam says to have little boy anger, little boy anger has been taken full, which it was, and there also were probably bad at least for the last two years. It had been a hundred and a days late. That has been a big collection during that period, wasn't it a collection? So that would have been after it, right? Well, no, because in the snapshot, I want the protections of Teddy E7CC, C.P. Seam, is that that religion that calculates whether something's in collection and the application of it doesn't apply. So, wait, he's paid his toll, and you will want to have the protections of little back under Teddy E7CC. You have to count that it's not a collection as of that present day

. No, because, okay, you started to start an accuracy report. No, I'm, and reason is because you have to take a look at the circumstance and the snapshot at that moment of time, that dispute comes in and what Mr. Seam's dispute is, A, the trade line was on as your court, for some inexplicable reason, and there was no record evidence that, tell us why, why not? So it was a period of time during the payment, which appears that Mr. Seam's did not have this trade line at all on his credit report. So what happens is, he pays the loan, and then, in quotas was statute, that what the quotas it had in the A, and when it was the quote, the quote's trade line now is on his credit report, and this is what the second. I've just kept here, it hasn't been on here for years, and Mr. Seam says this hasn't been on one trade report for years. How come it's here? Seam says to have little boy anger, little boy anger has been taken full, which it was, and there also were probably bad at least for the last two years. It had been a hundred and a days late. That has been a big collection during that period, wasn't it a collection? So that would have been after it, right? Well, no, because in the snapshot, I want the protections of Teddy E7CC, C.P. Seam, is that that religion that calculates whether something's in collection and the application of it doesn't apply. So, wait, he's paid his toll, and you will want to have the protections of little back under Teddy E7CC. You have to count that it's not a collection as of that present day. And you have to count that it was not paid for a hundred and a days late for at least two years in technical, two years in a buyer. So, what we say when we bring up leaflets is you have to look at that period of time under Teddy E7CC, where the date of the link will seem, where big collections does not apply as a reporting requirement. And you can't look back and say, okay, now you're dropped to the back, and say it wasn't a collection during the period of time that it was when you were only wasn't new. This is mostly like the scenario we have analyzed it to of some of his records expunished. We think we're back to save, where you engage in some critical activity back then, your records expunished. So, if you're not going to just get your apps to asking earlier, you're getting the H.A. All kinds of blood protections to folks like your client, including not only time-based, but information that ever needs to be reported once the lot is there. But people are giving up block protections whether it be the very simple protection that it provides, which is that student loan is not going to come off your credit report during the period of time to do so repayment. The purpose of the board is that when you come out as repayment, your student loan is now in a good positive status, and like every other student loan baller in the United States, that has credit in your report. Positive credit reports stay on positive trade on staying in your credit report for 10 years, post less activity. So that's why it's on the report right now. Correct. It's a point of being in the positive state

. And you have to count that it was not paid for a hundred and a days late for at least two years in technical, two years in a buyer. So, what we say when we bring up leaflets is you have to look at that period of time under Teddy E7CC, where the date of the link will seem, where big collections does not apply as a reporting requirement. And you can't look back and say, okay, now you're dropped to the back, and say it wasn't a collection during the period of time that it was when you were only wasn't new. This is mostly like the scenario we have analyzed it to of some of his records expunished. We think we're back to save, where you engage in some critical activity back then, your records expunished. So, if you're not going to just get your apps to asking earlier, you're getting the H.A. All kinds of blood protections to folks like your client, including not only time-based, but information that ever needs to be reported once the lot is there. But people are giving up block protections whether it be the very simple protection that it provides, which is that student loan is not going to come off your credit report during the period of time to do so repayment. The purpose of the board is that when you come out as repayment, your student loan is now in a good positive status, and like every other student loan baller in the United States, that has credit in your report. Positive credit reports stay on positive trade on staying in your credit report for 10 years, post less activity. So that's why it's on the report right now. Correct. It's a point of being in the positive state. But I can't understand the Mr. Simmons to be arguing that his credit score went down 100 points because this is reported now. On his credit report, because it's clearly looked at the credit report that he had made for 20 years. Yes, you are. The new fund to station, first of all, he, the point of his argument as the trial court recognized for us and as a skin state, his credit school was affected because number one, it wasn't on his credit report for some things blamed on reason, prior to the pay-off. So suddenly the new trade bond, the very fact that the new trade bond that's not reported, who don't feel fat, the credit score. The second aspect of what impact his credit score is the existence of that he was not, it was 180 days late for at least the last two years, which is a factual act. It was 180 days late for 20 years, forget two years. So the question then becomes how do you treat that 100 in a new way, late for each of those 21 months. And for each of those 20 months, you will then look at the statute. Now we're no longer on the protection system, so we see six. We will go up to 1681, see and look at the section that we're involved in. So if that section, you say more section applies, in that case is in five, any other address by your own information, other than records of conditions of crime, which is the case of a court by the second worst. So how does that translate into credit reporting? What happens is each of those months for which your client named day's late fall off the credit report, the month by month, the month by month, as the time passes

. But I can't understand the Mr. Simmons to be arguing that his credit score went down 100 points because this is reported now. On his credit report, because it's clearly looked at the credit report that he had made for 20 years. Yes, you are. The new fund to station, first of all, he, the point of his argument as the trial court recognized for us and as a skin state, his credit school was affected because number one, it wasn't on his credit report for some things blamed on reason, prior to the pay-off. So suddenly the new trade bond, the very fact that the new trade bond that's not reported, who don't feel fat, the credit score. The second aspect of what impact his credit score is the existence of that he was not, it was 180 days late for at least the last two years, which is a factual act. It was 180 days late for 20 years, forget two years. So the question then becomes how do you treat that 100 in a new way, late for each of those 21 months. And for each of those 20 months, you will then look at the statute. Now we're no longer on the protection system, so we see six. We will go up to 1681, see and look at the section that we're involved in. So if that section, you say more section applies, in that case is in five, any other address by your own information, other than records of conditions of crime, which is the case of a court by the second worst. So how does that translate into credit reporting? What happens is each of those months for which your client named day's late fall off the credit report, the month by month, the month by month, as the time passes. So as of the day, May 2011, anything on that report seven years back in terms of lean payments. I'm talking about the satisity camp, the bling pings, were full off month by month by month. So there's 24, 180 days, 3, 4, 3, 4, 3, 4, 3, 4, 3, 4, 3, 4, this is a 1681, see, a five word plot. And they fall off, for example, this January of 2010, that month by fall off in January of 2017. And January of 2010, fall off in February of 2017. Can I ask you a hypothetical if it is? The previous one is receiving 92. Let's say it's the fall to it, goes into collections and loans paid in 1995. How long could a CRA continue to report the loan? The CRA wouldn't report the loan, 95, it's paid back. Correct, once it's paid in four weeks, your status is paid in four. Okay, that's a positive. Okay, but how long could a CRA keep it, you know, the CRA can keep it in the test volume in this case, it's a clear ability. A positive notation on an annual credit report will stay on the credit report for a teen years from the day of the last activity. So that will be 10 years from when they gave it off, which will be 99,000, until 2005, as it paid in full count. 88 asks about cooperative agreements

. So as of the day, May 2011, anything on that report seven years back in terms of lean payments. I'm talking about the satisity camp, the bling pings, were full off month by month by month. So there's 24, 180 days, 3, 4, 3, 4, 3, 4, 3, 4, 3, 4, 3, 4, this is a 1681, see, a five word plot. And they fall off, for example, this January of 2010, that month by fall off in January of 2017. And January of 2010, fall off in February of 2017. Can I ask you a hypothetical if it is? The previous one is receiving 92. Let's say it's the fall to it, goes into collections and loans paid in 1995. How long could a CRA continue to report the loan? The CRA wouldn't report the loan, 95, it's paid back. Correct, once it's paid in four weeks, your status is paid in four. Okay, that's a positive. Okay, but how long could a CRA keep it, you know, the CRA can keep it in the test volume in this case, it's a clear ability. A positive notation on an annual credit report will stay on the credit report for a teen years from the day of the last activity. So that will be 10 years from when they gave it off, which will be 99,000, until 2005, as it paid in full count. 88 asks about cooperative agreements. Is there anything you record that supports the existence of one between 10 volume and credit agencies? We didn't add it. No, I mean, as far as the credit bill wasn't just being important, there didn't exist anything. As far as the traditional, there's a cooperative agreement that's being data-furnished, as an agreement would. As this asks about the record, it's like, you know, the CRA. So you said there's nothing in the record about that. Right, it wasn't an issue of just the issue of why the Y wasn't on this credit report, it's just nothing long can have an answer to. So could you do anything, Ruth? And this is our unit. Get your own. You know, clearly, in this court, Cat has touched on that in an answer. So, as you know, I would like to mention a few, for the Southwest case, for the South West, it's not just a safe offer against why the LASER will focus a company cannot be sent to the Worldly Pilot of the SCRA, but the company acts on a reasonable interpretation of the SCRA's coverage. So the act on a reasonable interpretation of the interaction between the HGA and the SCRA, I would make the argument that the very fact that the NACA system court found some shift on the issue, even if this court really disagree with it, shows that reasonable lines in this particular case can come out of different interpretations. And as a matter of law, that will leave the protection itself safe-goat by, as the court said, in the future's versus Southwest, my initial service is suddenly in the world from this issue. On the main surface, we've got some power. The panel comes out

. Is there anything you record that supports the existence of one between 10 volume and credit agencies? We didn't add it. No, I mean, as far as the credit bill wasn't just being important, there didn't exist anything. As far as the traditional, there's a cooperative agreement that's being data-furnished, as an agreement would. As this asks about the record, it's like, you know, the CRA. So you said there's nothing in the record about that. Right, it wasn't an issue of just the issue of why the Y wasn't on this credit report, it's just nothing long can have an answer to. So could you do anything, Ruth? And this is our unit. Get your own. You know, clearly, in this court, Cat has touched on that in an answer. So, as you know, I would like to mention a few, for the Southwest case, for the South West, it's not just a safe offer against why the LASER will focus a company cannot be sent to the Worldly Pilot of the SCRA, but the company acts on a reasonable interpretation of the SCRA's coverage. So the act on a reasonable interpretation of the interaction between the HGA and the SCRA, I would make the argument that the very fact that the NACA system court found some shift on the issue, even if this court really disagree with it, shows that reasonable lines in this particular case can come out of different interpretations. And as a matter of law, that will leave the protection itself safe-goat by, as the court said, in the future's versus Southwest, my initial service is suddenly in the world from this issue. On the main surface, we've got some power. The panel comes out. These are off the table, and should be a phone. All right, thank you, Council. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We are obliged to address here, or unless the next meeting to the Worldly Pilot has discussed the detection here, that material questions of fact exist as to whether a temple conduct was helpful. Any other fact, based on the safe goes, understanding the term of the world with reckless. And that's traditionally a question of fact for a jury. I put it out on the facts that we include the fact that the information was evident from the accounts screened in front of the dispute processor. And the temple had policy and place to frustrate the FCIR, including never bringing an account as to student, and never bringing data first to a frequency. Absent a safe-goat run or safe-goat, we think that question should be for a jury, as to whether or not temple will be on the station. As to whether or not there is a safe-go, safe-goat run or pleasant in this case, we are arguing that there is not first the requirements of a finisher under FCIRA section S2B or well understood, because there are numerous circuit courts that have by guidance on how to conduct a investigation

. These are off the table, and should be a phone. All right, thank you, Council. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We are obliged to address here, or unless the next meeting to the Worldly Pilot has discussed the detection here, that material questions of fact exist as to whether a temple conduct was helpful. Any other fact, based on the safe goes, understanding the term of the world with reckless. And that's traditionally a question of fact for a jury. I put it out on the facts that we include the fact that the information was evident from the accounts screened in front of the dispute processor. And the temple had policy and place to frustrate the FCIR, including never bringing an account as to student, and never bringing data first to a frequency. Absent a safe-goat run or safe-goat, we think that question should be for a jury, as to whether or not temple will be on the station. As to whether or not there is a safe-go, safe-goat run or pleasant in this case, we are arguing that there is not first the requirements of a finisher under FCIRA section S2B or well understood, because there are numerous circuit courts that have by guidance on how to conduct a investigation. We have said, it brings up a point, at least the district court here agreed with that. You know? Here on the tip clear, there was a misunderstanding of the HGN. There are certainly guidance for the rest of how to conduct an investigation under S2B. Now the question is then, in a state market, because temple possesses a reasonable reading of the HGN, we were arguing that there is not, because this statute is unambiguous, and there is no reasonable alternative reading that could be had. The reason for that is true called, dearer. First, the statute is explicit that it has only taken several key agencies. It is under-subdued, panel-induced, and the temple is not controlled by the agency. Second, the time allowed for the approval of this information applies only until the rapture will run as painful. And again, it is under-subdued and unbeused that the calendar will be in full, and it is not Mr. Seen's to speak. Now, listening to what Mr. Barbarian did, a human interpretation of the HGA is, you are not a native personal currency. I don't see that anywhere in the HGA, I don't see that anywhere in the FCI, there are reading into things that simply aren't there explicitly ended, personally, accordingly. The same operator simply does not exist with respect to real estate

. We have said, it brings up a point, at least the district court here agreed with that. You know? Here on the tip clear, there was a misunderstanding of the HGN. There are certainly guidance for the rest of how to conduct an investigation under S2B. Now the question is then, in a state market, because temple possesses a reasonable reading of the HGN, we were arguing that there is not, because this statute is unambiguous, and there is no reasonable alternative reading that could be had. The reason for that is true called, dearer. First, the statute is explicit that it has only taken several key agencies. It is under-subdued, panel-induced, and the temple is not controlled by the agency. Second, the time allowed for the approval of this information applies only until the rapture will run as painful. And again, it is under-subdued and unbeused that the calendar will be in full, and it is not Mr. Seen's to speak. Now, listening to what Mr. Barbarian did, a human interpretation of the HGA is, you are not a native personal currency. I don't see that anywhere in the HGA, I don't see that anywhere in the FCI, there are reading into things that simply aren't there explicitly ended, personally, accordingly. The same operator simply does not exist with respect to real estate. I see that just by the time I would begin to see this case, so you mean, I mean, it's unlikely to be repeated in the 20 years that we could see it, I'm not going to talk about the obligation. You are a representative of the case, and the importance is that to allow a farsher such as temple to not work with the B of personal currency, not with the end-catcher and account set, not working in history, this is the customer risk. I remember really having a doctoral information on this credit level for an indefinite period of time, and that's precisely not what Congress intended, while I drive to the FCI. Thank you, Mr. President. Okay, thank you, Councilor. The other thing, this case is very much brief to argue that the 100-bottles could work for a few more.

The world's last case for today sings versus temple university. Good morning, I am Anthony the Corbin. It's kind of a great recording. Francis and I are now representing your car, Edward Siemens. My man was a three-hand store ball this time. That's great. Thank you. It's an interviewer, earning rising so many jobs in two-step-all. Because it is interpreted in higher education at the ADA to exam temple, from its responsibilities under the Fair Court Reporting Act, or the FCI. The relevant meeting question by the ADA however has no effect on the fair, on the temple responsibilities under the Fair Court. We're going to have to figure out what the interplay is between the Fair Court Reporting Act and the ADA. Are you saying that the ADA has no application whatsoever in this case? It's basically relevant. Under the fact that this case, you're on the answer to that question, yes. Okay. And it's primarily because first, the statute itself explicitly applies only to consider Canadian seats. And it is, I am thinking, you should be careful as not to consider more Canadian seats. And second, the statute's effect on the time period is allowed for the reporting of Williams-Lomit in Pollution last only until the loan is paid in full. And it is understood that the time is just seems to stew the account question, the loan would already be paid in full. So the ADA does have an effect then, right? No, the ADA would not be in effect at the time is just as understood. The SCRA's provisions would be in effect at that time. The same new period, correct your honor under Section C-H4, for which we now apply for collections. And so what would be allowed in May of 2011, he pays the reporting of the Howl-Long-Tray-Long-Sail under the ADA or SCRA each other's dashes. You don't know what your face is. And that's one time the trade collection of our reviews. Why is it that it has indication that it just disappeared? Why should it remain as primitive as a serious sort of an adverse event? Because it should be shut right a time for the past before the system can be paid. Right, so if you are on the statute, the Section C of the SCRA accounts for two of the circumstances. One is the count points for collections. Two is for other adverse information. The facts of this case were flat to the discount. What was the planning videos of the account, based on the account, based on the collection? The account records from the face of the R-R-B would reference to the fact that it isn't an account, based on the collection. So Section C-A-4 is time to be instructed by and not the different analysis, which might be given up the other section, A-C-A-5. So it's understood for it's seven years in the collection, which is nineteen ninety two. It's from the day of postal inequality, also under name days. It also would be seven years from the day of postal inequality and a calculation, and it includes under name day, between two or seven and a half years approximately. So in this scenario, what would that bring us to nineteen ninety nine? That would bring us to approximately nineteen ninety nine. And if it were nineteen ninety nine, are you saying that it should have come off the report and should never have appeared? I'm saying it's possible, it may, it's possible in nineteen ninety nine, depending on what the fast-forward minute that time, and that the account could have continued to be reported. Still into the A-G-A's, the exemption for credit report, in A-G-A-6. Okay. However, under the circumstances of twenty eleven, does that be case? But isn't that the part of the motivation of the district court's decision that the H-A-M-A-L-A, the credit agency to continue to report it? And that's why there's no harm under me, silly. Well, you're not, that's not rules. That's not the facts that the time Mr. Seen is just good. So the analysis is that he conducted, that the time Mr. Seen's disputes, because that's where the temporal obligation, taking that to reasonable investigation arises. So, in maybe, the facts make you different, and there was only a different, a different period of time. But in May, and always the twenty eleven, we're talking about an account that was being full, and therefore the S-E-R-A is really the only available statute, and analyzing whether or not what Teppel did was reasonable under use. In May of twenty eleven, what could have been the mean on the uptrave line under the S-E-R-A, anything? If the account was properly reported by Teppel, it would have informed the credit agencies to remove the account from Mr. Seen's credit reports. But the S-E-R-A, I'm sorry, the credit agency could have left it if it chose to under the S-E-R-A for seven years. Is that right? I know that if Teppels are properly reported, it's properly reported first to linguistics. At the time Teppel responded to that dispute, it responded with that information. It should have informed the credit report agencies to remove the account from Mr. Seen's credit. And I'm fast and simple with that. The testimony of Tepp Transean's representative, the front, that Transean was to the data verse, the one that was being asked to be the account. From what are his standard that, come on, that version, they're fully aware of you because you're the only data verse, the one that gets it. So you say, industry standards, you talk about that manual? The senior manual, yes, Ron. How is that persuasive in this case? There's a really many more persuasive than any other opinion of any brief. It's not a force of law or anything. I hear you, I don't know if it doesn't have force of law, but it certainly speaks to the understanding that first you must have in terms of how to shoot or report information back to consumer police agencies. This is the instruction manual that the consumer police agencies give two parts of credit information to assist them in how to respond. That document is removed with the advancements that the data verse, the frequency, is resumed to determine when information becomes obsolete. And it's specifically instructs and tortures to report that information to the consumer police. Can you just ask you, hypothetically, if your client never paid the loan back, how long can you continue on his credit report? Forever, right? Correct. Assuming that the HGA was in a certain status. Why wouldn't you apply? Well, you're under a constant record. The record is for the HGA to pronounce the, if you look further back in the statute, there must be some agreement between Apple and the consumer police agencies. So it's a sign that it's all a sign that it's assumed it's a purpose loan and all that? Correct. Assuming that as the case, any HGA does apply, and Mr. Simmons did not pay back. That loan is unpaid. That account of their loan hypothetically cuts down as reported heavily. And is it, is it, conceited in this case that the HGA did apply up until the court of time that the loan was paid? I don't know the answer to that question, but it's a thing even between Apple and the government to do this to any information during the discovery of what the court did wasn't agreement. There are also no evidence to suggest that the critical interagency were otherwise followed the HGA with respect to the account of the question. So the doubt that, if you had the tackle in terms of whether or not it was actually applying before Mr. Simmons. How did the district court hear all that? I didn't realize this was really an issue. I didn't the district court assume that the HGA applied? I think it did. The loan is clear. You are the HGA, if the HGA is a particular, the only consideration remains as one of the serial questions of fact exist to the court of inclusion of Apple, the un-English and we verbally felt in the reasonable investigation. The answer to that question is yes, this substantial record exists to the court of inclusion that Apple's investigations were unreasonable. You see it's an issue of fact. Yes, I do. There are more key pieces of information that Apple failed to report on to a dispute. First, I'm going to discuss this in a while already. It failed or the day of first or when could see? Second, it failed to modify the account status. Third, it failed to modify the human history. And fourth, it failed to report the account as disputed. The consequences of the temperance failures are evident. One, it can see the fact that the account you removed from life's grip, but from Mr. Simmons credit reports. And two, if Oscar is Mr. Simmons would like to have the account report as disputed. Now, what are the damages in this case? Are there statutory damages? There are statutory damages if the account status is considered well over. Plates also claim national damages for lost credit opportunities and for not getting under the debt, but even such as damage to reputation and emotional distress. You believe it doesn't seem to address the negligent occupants by pursuing this thing? Or are you going to lay out of the real form? I don't know. I'll poke the areas down. Even though the truth didn't really address the district courts, did not I allow that? What is going to be on the other hand, we've done the justice because what we do pull out is we've reversed to the temperance failures and through reporting this information. It's underlining conducts. It's beautiful. If you know vastness of this conduct is very unreasonable. First and foremost, the information that's had the failure of the work was clearly on the accounts that were just due to the processor, did not indicate further than her computer screened to find information that the failure of the work was on the RFI. So they screened with a reflective both the presence of a dispute together with the data first-linked. The screen would have easily identified the data first-linked. They would have easily identified the accounts' points for questions. In fact, the disproven processor during the deposition had no control finding that within our seconds. Furthermore, it testified that the motion never went as an effort. On the other hand, the opposition, it's quite a big reason to claim is that just compared to ACS is just not enough. More than that, there are. Taking into ACS is just not enough given the fact that Temple had no understanding of the procedures that they were following. And the number I really appreciate what I was doing or not doing. But on the other hand, what we found is that at a narrow policy, Temple was not reporting a data first-linked. For example, at a time that needs to be squeezed, they were not reporting the accounts as dispute. Now, other circuits such as the 6th circuit and the podium, now we find that a question has to be negligent and is existed. But also a question has to be given. The damage has existed when there is evidence to show that there are policies and effects that would frustrate the system DSLR. Which I think is happening here because the testimony suggests that there are policies to narrow up the data first-linked and narrow up the accounts dispute. You are the... The ACM really has police at its table, you are for considering what a temple felt that can fly with its duties. And with the ACA, all the people that have a picture, the picture is clear. There are all kinds of questions of facts that exist. That's the way the network, the temple may be, all the fully built and built in recent more investigations. To put that reason, we are asking a court to reverse and the random cases of the picture call for the third time. Oh, that's where proof is on, I'll work. Thank you. I'll answer your vote if you can address the realfulness issue too. That'd be great. I'll do it. Thank you. Good morning, Your Honor. I'm Schwochnert, the president of the House of the Haths at the University. May it please the court. The intent of Congress, the express intent of Congress in this case, could not be clear, particularly as it pertains to student loans. Congress has set forth a very well thought-out scheme related to the collection and repainted student loans throughout the legal spectrum. In the HGA, the Higher Education Act, it expressly sets forth an issue dealing with credit reporting under 1087 CC, also under 10AA, given the other session of student loans. Congress has established an embankment site, and you cannot discharge a student loan under less under the most extreme circumstances. Congress has also established that there is no statute of limitations in terms of being painted of student loans, and that any state loan burning, a statute of limitations or contract is void. Congress has done this as it expressed in the amendments to the HGA because they wanted to make it extremely clear, you have to repay the student loans, you cannot made out the clock, and avoid regulations, and it will appear on the credit report, for as long as you don't pay it. What you have in this case is a very unique conversion between the HGA and the Fair Credit Report Act. It is clear, and I am not going to be certain facts, because if this is a credit card or another transaction, the responsibility of the reporting would be clear. If it was in the collections, there is no question that the explanation of a seven year period is time, they wouldn't fall off. The rest of the treatment that the report is inaccurate, but for the HGA's application. What I believe is that you are not an author, it is not an actor, because of the HGA. Okay, because it is not true, the student loan is not treated like a credit card, like a medical debt, or like any other transaction. So you are suggesting that the HGA allows a few discussions on inaccuracies? That the definition of what's accurate or what's inaccurate changes for student loans. If something is in collection or something has been bullied, how should it matter whether to student loan naggles the subject at the pin who the collection activity? Because what happens to affect a boat is language, and the specific language of a total disloyal is paid in full. Has the effect of taking that period of the repayment, that's hot. We see what the student loan with the paying, with the student loan, what you have a credit report is a traditional context of the period of repayment. At which time, a conclusion of repayment would always be a positive status as far as the account status, and if the court would. At that important point, time for a look at the credit report in this case, and it's at a record of an A-254, another copy of A-265, you'll see that the credit report contains in essence for a process of this case two distinct key elements. The first of which is the account status, and at the end of the course of the loan, it's going to say the account status is paid, it's overdue, it's not fulfilled. At the completion of the loan process, it says paid in full. Well, let me start with the input between these two statutes. You say 1087 CC, I guess it's C3, where it mentions 681C, 4 and 5, okay? It doesn't just deal with the time periods, that's not that, you're assigning quite a lot of weight to that particular reception of 1087 CC, C3. I think in the opposite, we read that as well, it says that 101C, 4 and 5 say 7 years, this particular section says notwithstanding those two sections, it's until the loan is paid. You're saying it has even more significance, it deals with reporting requirements, and in other things, something more than just the time period? The time period is when these beings, what will say is the giving and unity, so see the loan will fall, right? That's what the significance of the time period is, right? Correct, an international credit account, a circumstance, if you were to file a date at the loan, you would say, as a practical pattern, it's testified by these three and the transfer unit numbers, in this case, the account will run off someone's credit report, after 7 years from the day of 1st and I could say, this new survey about that, we all debate that issue. So, when these have been started, Perkins, no idea, I'm sorry, right? Unless it's a Perkins, no idea, the requirements of the AGA. Correct, and how does the practical question is, how does that not run off of a credit report? The general law of the assistance of the law, this works, is that there is a reasonable gain of the link of C, that is provided to the credit bureaus, during this period of time. But if you gave them, if you didn't the link of C, while the loan was still unpaid, it would run through the fall-offs automatically, if you provided code 93, which is the B. collections code, in active, account does not be paid at fall. In the fall-off, in this case, 1999, so you were willing to not be repaid in the fall-off. What Congress has done with the expressly state, when they handed the AGA to how the session was, you can't do that. So what they have directed is, you are provided the link of C, you are provided anything that deals with the words, collections with the same collections, to the credit report of your own during this period of time, because if you did, in the fall-off, you would defeat the incentive Congress, to have this remaining loan, you are provided the report during the entire repaying period. Most of it was the dispute, the fact that it was in dispute, that for some reason the students saw that on the cut-out loan a dollar an hour and filed this and really distributed to the wrong number. Is there an obligation to stick to correct that? Yes, in the case of law, in the circuit, and elsewhere, it's pretty clear that you take a loan of the dispute, what's being distributed, and responsibility to that front share under S2W, and it's really easy to respond to exactly what is being distributed. So here we have a scenario where there wasn't dispute, I'll be reading May 2011, that period of time, it doesn't appear on the report, where the policy was for not to be recorded, quotas it, this quote says it, and quotas it, the common information, and we expect to be on the report, right? Isn't that a problem? Protect the AGA. Okay, let's assume that a pause in this scenario. No, because, okay, you started to start an accuracy report. No, I'm, and reason is because you have to take a look at the circumstance and the snapshot at that moment of time, that dispute comes in and what Mr. Seam's dispute is, A, the trade line was on as your court, for some inexplicable reason, and there was no record evidence that, tell us why, why not? So it was a period of time during the payment, which appears that Mr. Seam's did not have this trade line at all on his credit report. So what happens is, he pays the loan, and then, in quotas was statute, that what the quotas it had in the A, and when it was the quote, the quote's trade line now is on his credit report, and this is what the second. I've just kept here, it hasn't been on here for years, and Mr. Seam says this hasn't been on one trade report for years. How come it's here? Seam says to have little boy anger, little boy anger has been taken full, which it was, and there also were probably bad at least for the last two years. It had been a hundred and a days late. That has been a big collection during that period, wasn't it a collection? So that would have been after it, right? Well, no, because in the snapshot, I want the protections of Teddy E7CC, C.P. Seam, is that that religion that calculates whether something's in collection and the application of it doesn't apply. So, wait, he's paid his toll, and you will want to have the protections of little back under Teddy E7CC. You have to count that it's not a collection as of that present day. And you have to count that it was not paid for a hundred and a days late for at least two years in technical, two years in a buyer. So, what we say when we bring up leaflets is you have to look at that period of time under Teddy E7CC, where the date of the link will seem, where big collections does not apply as a reporting requirement. And you can't look back and say, okay, now you're dropped to the back, and say it wasn't a collection during the period of time that it was when you were only wasn't new. This is mostly like the scenario we have analyzed it to of some of his records expunished. We think we're back to save, where you engage in some critical activity back then, your records expunished. So, if you're not going to just get your apps to asking earlier, you're getting the H.A. All kinds of blood protections to folks like your client, including not only time-based, but information that ever needs to be reported once the lot is there. But people are giving up block protections whether it be the very simple protection that it provides, which is that student loan is not going to come off your credit report during the period of time to do so repayment. The purpose of the board is that when you come out as repayment, your student loan is now in a good positive status, and like every other student loan baller in the United States, that has credit in your report. Positive credit reports stay on positive trade on staying in your credit report for 10 years, post less activity. So that's why it's on the report right now. Correct. It's a point of being in the positive state. But I can't understand the Mr. Simmons to be arguing that his credit score went down 100 points because this is reported now. On his credit report, because it's clearly looked at the credit report that he had made for 20 years. Yes, you are. The new fund to station, first of all, he, the point of his argument as the trial court recognized for us and as a skin state, his credit school was affected because number one, it wasn't on his credit report for some things blamed on reason, prior to the pay-off. So suddenly the new trade bond, the very fact that the new trade bond that's not reported, who don't feel fat, the credit score. The second aspect of what impact his credit score is the existence of that he was not, it was 180 days late for at least the last two years, which is a factual act. It was 180 days late for 20 years, forget two years. So the question then becomes how do you treat that 100 in a new way, late for each of those 21 months. And for each of those 20 months, you will then look at the statute. Now we're no longer on the protection system, so we see six. We will go up to 1681, see and look at the section that we're involved in. So if that section, you say more section applies, in that case is in five, any other address by your own information, other than records of conditions of crime, which is the case of a court by the second worst. So how does that translate into credit reporting? What happens is each of those months for which your client named day's late fall off the credit report, the month by month, the month by month, as the time passes. So as of the day, May 2011, anything on that report seven years back in terms of lean payments. I'm talking about the satisity camp, the bling pings, were full off month by month by month. So there's 24, 180 days, 3, 4, 3, 4, 3, 4, 3, 4, 3, 4, 3, 4, this is a 1681, see, a five word plot. And they fall off, for example, this January of 2010, that month by fall off in January of 2017. And January of 2010, fall off in February of 2017. Can I ask you a hypothetical if it is? The previous one is receiving 92. Let's say it's the fall to it, goes into collections and loans paid in 1995. How long could a CRA continue to report the loan? The CRA wouldn't report the loan, 95, it's paid back. Correct, once it's paid in four weeks, your status is paid in four. Okay, that's a positive. Okay, but how long could a CRA keep it, you know, the CRA can keep it in the test volume in this case, it's a clear ability. A positive notation on an annual credit report will stay on the credit report for a teen years from the day of the last activity. So that will be 10 years from when they gave it off, which will be 99,000, until 2005, as it paid in full count. 88 asks about cooperative agreements. Is there anything you record that supports the existence of one between 10 volume and credit agencies? We didn't add it. No, I mean, as far as the credit bill wasn't just being important, there didn't exist anything. As far as the traditional, there's a cooperative agreement that's being data-furnished, as an agreement would. As this asks about the record, it's like, you know, the CRA. So you said there's nothing in the record about that. Right, it wasn't an issue of just the issue of why the Y wasn't on this credit report, it's just nothing long can have an answer to. So could you do anything, Ruth? And this is our unit. Get your own. You know, clearly, in this court, Cat has touched on that in an answer. So, as you know, I would like to mention a few, for the Southwest case, for the South West, it's not just a safe offer against why the LASER will focus a company cannot be sent to the Worldly Pilot of the SCRA, but the company acts on a reasonable interpretation of the SCRA's coverage. So the act on a reasonable interpretation of the interaction between the HGA and the SCRA, I would make the argument that the very fact that the NACA system court found some shift on the issue, even if this court really disagree with it, shows that reasonable lines in this particular case can come out of different interpretations. And as a matter of law, that will leave the protection itself safe-goat by, as the court said, in the future's versus Southwest, my initial service is suddenly in the world from this issue. On the main surface, we've got some power. The panel comes out. These are off the table, and should be a phone. All right, thank you, Council. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We are obliged to address here, or unless the next meeting to the Worldly Pilot has discussed the detection here, that material questions of fact exist as to whether a temple conduct was helpful. Any other fact, based on the safe goes, understanding the term of the world with reckless. And that's traditionally a question of fact for a jury. I put it out on the facts that we include the fact that the information was evident from the accounts screened in front of the dispute processor. And the temple had policy and place to frustrate the FCIR, including never bringing an account as to student, and never bringing data first to a frequency. Absent a safe-goat run or safe-goat, we think that question should be for a jury, as to whether or not temple will be on the station. As to whether or not there is a safe-go, safe-goat run or pleasant in this case, we are arguing that there is not first the requirements of a finisher under FCIRA section S2B or well understood, because there are numerous circuit courts that have by guidance on how to conduct a investigation. We have said, it brings up a point, at least the district court here agreed with that. You know? Here on the tip clear, there was a misunderstanding of the HGN. There are certainly guidance for the rest of how to conduct an investigation under S2B. Now the question is then, in a state market, because temple possesses a reasonable reading of the HGN, we were arguing that there is not, because this statute is unambiguous, and there is no reasonable alternative reading that could be had. The reason for that is true called, dearer. First, the statute is explicit that it has only taken several key agencies. It is under-subdued, panel-induced, and the temple is not controlled by the agency. Second, the time allowed for the approval of this information applies only until the rapture will run as painful. And again, it is under-subdued and unbeused that the calendar will be in full, and it is not Mr. Seen's to speak. Now, listening to what Mr. Barbarian did, a human interpretation of the HGA is, you are not a native personal currency. I don't see that anywhere in the HGA, I don't see that anywhere in the FCI, there are reading into things that simply aren't there explicitly ended, personally, accordingly. The same operator simply does not exist with respect to real estate. I see that just by the time I would begin to see this case, so you mean, I mean, it's unlikely to be repeated in the 20 years that we could see it, I'm not going to talk about the obligation. You are a representative of the case, and the importance is that to allow a farsher such as temple to not work with the B of personal currency, not with the end-catcher and account set, not working in history, this is the customer risk. I remember really having a doctoral information on this credit level for an indefinite period of time, and that's precisely not what Congress intended, while I drive to the FCI. Thank you, Mr. President. Okay, thank you, Councilor. The other thing, this case is very much brief to argue that the 100-bottles could work for a few more