Mr. Brower, happy to hear from you. Thank you, Your Honor, and may it please the Court, Max Brower, on behalf of plaintiff Helen Karen Ramsey. Essentially, at issue in this case is whether the district court aired in requiring a heightened fact-plating under plaintiffs' FDCBA claims. Plaintiff alleged, essentially, two theories of liability in this case, the first regarding whether a Sawyer property management in the lofts of Jeffery Tapper placed an unauthorized stamp on a court order that was false deceptive or misleading to a least sophisticated consumer, and the second theory of liability addresses whether Sawyer property management was even allowed to collect this debt because they were an unlicensed debt collector under Maryland state law. By May, I'd like to begin with the first issue dealing with the stamp. And this is a novel issue. In fact, there is no precedent anywhere that I'm aware of in the United States. It deals with a debt collector modifying a court order with a debt collection stamp. Now, in the state of Maryland, in post-judgment discovery proceedings, judgment creditors effectively have two options, the first of which is to engage in post-judgment interrogatories. The second, which is more, which I'd like to call the nuclear option, is to bring the consumers into court under a court order to discover their assets in front of a judge. Now, I mentioned this second option as the nuclear option, because if a consumer does not appear at these oral exams, then they may be imprisoned. And for certain consumers, particularly we pled one consumer, BBB, who failed to appear when this court order was modified with a debt collector stamp, was imprisoned and had a bond set at approximately the amount of the debt. Now, in things like these happen, it confuses consumers into whether they're being imprisoned over non-payment of a debt, which is unconstitutional in Maryland and every state in the union that I'm aware of, or whether the consumers are being imprisoned for. But isn't the, I mean, you have a problem with the Maryland process in general, Doug, too? Not necessarily, your honor. The problem is with the stamp at the top of the form. Okay, but then the touchstone, let's just say the act doesn't say anything about it. It doesn't require it that it be fixed there and doesn't prohibit it. The inquiry we have to make is whether a consumer, or the least sophisticated consumer, would be misled or confused by it. And, as I understand it, at least part of the question is, did the stamp of fixed by the attorney, and cars you to think that this was not some kind of court order? And I think your honor, based on the complaint, and again, this is 12B6 motion to dismiss, based on the pleadings in the amended complaint, this stamp was affixed, not just on Ms. Ramsey's complaint, but on many other consumers who are not the complaint on the court order. The back-up though, if you would just minute, in making this determination that you and Judge Wilkinson have been talking about, do we look at the stamp only, or do we look at the entire document on which the stamp appears? And does that make a difference in this case? We do look at the entire document. And I think it's an issue of fact, or at least one that should require some discovery of whether. Doesn't it make a difference that the document says order of the court and is signed by a judge? We're looking at the whole document, and it does say order of the court and is signed by a judge. Why doesn't that take away the issue of confusion? Well, at that point we're left with conflicting information. We acknowledge three things on the court order that could influence a consumer. The first, obviously, is the stamp which appears at the top of the page. The next thing you see is a request. Then at the bottom of the page, there is an order signed by the judge
. On the back side of the form, we do acknowledge that there are instructions which say, if you don't appear, you could be arrested. What it says right up there, a district court of Maryland, a Baltimore County, both on the DCCV32 and 33. And then, my colleague points out, it says at the bottom, order of court. Is this really, and then it says request for order directing, defendant to appear examination? When you look at the whole document, would someone really be confused about the nature of the document? Yes, I do, you're wrong. Tell me why you think that. Well, there's three considerations. First, there's a court, if I may, deception is a scale of deception. There are some things that are clearly deceptive, some things that are clearly not a gray area in the middle. I think this isn't a gray area. And I'd like to place and contrast this case with the courts holding in Miller versus Paco General Credit, where in that case, it was a debt collection, Dunning Letter, at the top, in two-inch white letters against a red background, stated immediate full payment in all capital letters, Phonus today and now, on the backside, it included the 1692. I think another aspect of this too, and that is the language that you take exception to, was language required on by the statute? Not in all circumstances. For example, there's a formal pleading exception. The statute does not explicitly require that to come in. What kind of remedy are you seeking here? Actual and statutory damages into the federal Fair Debt Collection practice. Okay. So, all right. But my point is, is it right to assess statutory damages against someone who, at least from the appearance of it, is trying to do his best to comply with the act and is acting out of what appears to be an abundance of cards. I mean, I have some reservation about just imposing damages on an attorney who seems to be, maybe he's a little over his elus, but seems to be doing his best to comply. Well, Your Honor, we don't know what the mental impression of the attorney is. That's not in plain. What else could be, why else could it be doing? Well, their, honestly, Your Honor, it could be, he wouldn't be putting that in the misleading, right? Well, first thing is that the mental impression is irrelevant. If it's misleading, if it's false, if it's deceptive, the inquiry ends there under the statute. We simply don't know what the mental impression is. Perhaps if somebody goes to jail, they're more likely to pay their debt. I don't know. It's simply not, you know, at issue in 12b6, it's not in the amended complaint. I think more specifically, we should focus on the requirements in twombley. In fact, twombley, as expressly rejected heightened fact pleading and even says that a well-completed complaint may proceed
. As far as 12b6 is concerned, we have before us both the D.C. what is it? The form 32 and the form 33. And so, you know, I would assume that the district court would look at those. Did you attach them to the complaint I assume you did? Yes, and they're in the record. So, they would be legitimately referring to those in the summary in the 12b6 dismissal. But the problem I have with it, with one difficulty that I have with your argument, is that both at the top and the bottom, it appears to indicate it's a court order. As I say, it starts district court of Maryland, of Baltimore County. And then at the bottom, it says, show cause, order for contempt, or order of court. And then it's signed by the judge. And so, that is the key document for purposes of the 12b6 motion. And I'd just give them a little bit skeptical of how someone would be confused by a document with states very explicitly up at its top and very explicitly at its bottom that it's a court order. You need to answer that form. Two reasons why your honor. First, the National Center for Education Statistics has actually studied literacy levels of Americans. In the National Assessment of Adult Literacy, this is available online. Your honors may take a look at it at www.ncs.ed.gov, backslash, N-A-L. 34 to 55% of adults in the United States are at a basic level of literacy, meaning they can't deal with conflicting information. What we have here is conflicting information. We have a stamp that it says it's from a debt collector. It's at the top. There's also the name of a court at the top. A consumer is likely to look at the top first. We read from top to bottom left to right. The information that appears further down on the back side of the page are only likely to give consumers impressions after they read that conflicting information at the top
. When we're dealing with the least sophisticated consumer, this court's acknowledges a gull can be a gullable consumer, which the seventh circuit has acknowledged is literally the lowest rung on the sophistication ladder. We see that although I have no doubt that every judge in attorney in the United States of America would find this stamp not confusing at all in this form perfectly clear. But it's not subjectively what we as experts find deceptive, but it has to do with what that person at that below basic or even basic level of understanding understands. Secondly, this is just a complaint. We're not required to plead expert discovery. The great irony in this case, what we're be dismissed, is that it's not in the record because we can't get our expert in. But in analogous or similarly situated state cases involving the same issue, we went out and we hired Dr. Thomas Moronick, who for 17 years was a director of impact evaluation at the Federal Trade Commission. Research this, obtained an expert report, he conducted a report using these very same stamped forms at issue and concluded that in fact these stamps made a difference. Now, the court feels that it's appropriate for us to plead that we had requested leave to amend below and we would respectfully request that this case be reversed and remanded so we could plead those findings. Although it's never been required in fact in the Robinson versus C Pines case, this court effectively said that we need not make our case or forecast evidence. Now, I have only a little bit of time left, if I may address the collection agency issue. This one I think is slightly more clear. It starts with Maryland State Law, Maryland Business Regulation 7301A1 Small Roman numeral I clearly states that anyone who collects on behalf of another is a collection agency. And unlike the FDCPA, it doesn't make the requirement, have the requirement that the debt is in default at the time that it's acquired. So the plain meaning of that Maryland statute is clear that so your property management needs to be licensed as a debt collector. And the District Court of Maryland and other District Courts in the fourth circuit have routinely held its violation of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act for an unlicensed debt collector to attempt to collect the debt, which so your attempted to do in this case. Why is it a debt collector? I mean, it seems to me to be just a rental agent or the cap because most real property developments very often are rental agents. So it lives in one of the residential units, but they always have somebody who greets people that comes, who come to look at the different units and shows them the units and tries to get business by having as many people possible occupy the units that try to get it full occupancy, explaining the leases to them. So it seems to me that that was what, sorry, it was more of a property manager than it was a debt collector. Well, you're under the state law, all it's requires that the collector collect it if I may. Just answer the question. Just under the FDCPA, you're honor. I think it meets the. You're a debt collector, if you're a paper person, you're a delivery person for the Washington Post, you're a debt collector. I'm a ten year old. I deliver newspapers. So I'm a debt collector under the Maryland such
. Oh, well, no, you're on. Why not? The I'm it seems to me you're over. You're asking us to accept a a. An unlimited statutory reach and it clearly isn't there have to be limits. Why does she tell us what kind of limits the Maryland courts have put on it? The Maryland state courts actually have not addressed. Well, I answer the question. Would you like me to answer the FDCPA question or the. I'm talking about the Maryland definition, weren't you? Yes, but then I pledge Wilkinson it also asked me about the FDCPA and I just want to make sure I. I should have answered everything up here. I didn't mean to cut a crop. I mean, a better question. Okay. There is no Maryland state case law and I think this would be a question that could be properly certified to the Maryland Court of Appeals. The Maryland Department of Labor licensing and regulation has taken action against. Property managers, for example, case against condo property management association because they collect on behalf of another on behalf of the homeowners association. That's all that's required. The gravament of what the property manager does is so that the property owner doesn't have to be bothered with keeping the books and collecting the debts. Or the rents the property manager at its core is taking money in exchange for the consumer to live in the owner or landlord's property. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Decker, I'm actually on Mr. Ray. I'm sorry. Yes, I think I can explain good morning, Your Honours and may please the court. Mr. Ray is it on? Yes
. I will be arguing and discussing the licensing and the issue of whether or not the soil property management is a debt collection agency. I represent soil property management. My co-counsel, Mr. Decker, and then we'll argue the disclosure issue and we'll split our time evenly. It is clear in this case as the district court properly concluded that soil property management as your honours I think alluded to. It's not a debt collector, particularly within the meaning of the FDCPA. The FDCPA has two requirements and one exception for an organization to be a debt collector. One, it is any person who uses instrumentalities of interstate commerce or the males in any business, the principal purpose of which is the collection of debts. And two, one, who regularly collects debts owed or due to another. There are a number of arguments below, I think each of which the district court recognized and upheld, that the FDCPA does not apply to creditors collecting debts in their own names. And whose primary business is not debt collection. In the instant case, even if that were not the case and those two factors did not apply, 15 USC Section 1692A6F3 expressly excludes. And I quote, any person collecting or attempting to collect any debt owed or due or asserted to be owed or due to another to the extent such activity. And this is Section 3, concerns a debt which is not in default at the time it was obtained by such person. So even if soyer property management is deemed to otherwise be a debt collector and we would argue they are not, there is absolutely no allegation in this complaint. And indeed there cannot be that soyer only took on these debts once they were in default. As the record reflects in this case and this is starting at J.A.107, the lease. Soyer was identified as the lessor and it was identified as soyer property management as agent for woodmore but identified as the lessor, the landlord. Indeed, the lease states in pertinent part, this lease is made on October the 16th, 2007. Soyer property management of Maryland, agent for SR woodmore LLC, here and after is referred to as landlord. Soyer took on obligations and rights as a landlord under that lease. And then when the tenant in this case defaulted on her rent due, soyer retained a licensed attorney who by de facto is a collection agent licensed under Maryland. Soyer was then allowed to file a lawsuit. Tapper then filed a lawsuit on behalf of the landlord identified under the lease which was soyer property management. Judgment was entered on behalf of soyer property management. The execution occurred on behalf of soyer property management
. All of these facts are not dispute. All of these facts are alleged in the very documents you referred to, Judge Wilkinson, which were attached to the complaint. And as the district court properly held as a matter of law on the fourth circuit, if the documents for any reason that are attached to a complaint, contradict the bear or conclusive allegations, the court looks to the documents. And in this case, that's the venue case. We understand that. Thank you very much sir. Okay, I will move on then. Excuse me, your time has expired. Oh, it has. Thank you. Mr. Wright. Good afternoon. James Dickerman on behalf of Mr. Tapper. I'm sorry. It's a little confusing that there are two of us. Yes. Is it avertly mixed to up? Okay. As Mr. Ray indicated, I'm going to focus my argument on the disclosure theory. I certainly adopt Mr. Ray's argument on the licensing issue. I think that Judge Bennett in the district court got this exactly right where he said, even with the disclosure stamp added by Mr. Tapper, plaintiff presents no facts illustrating that a person with a basic level of understanding and willingness to read with care would have failed to see the documents as court orders. And that's what the least sophisticated standard is. And I think the court could affirm it on that. What facts has to be played to demonstrate that? Well, I think the facts that would have to be, would have to be played is something to establish that would have to plead facts that show that are read
. A reasonable person seeing this would be confused by the doc. Well, on his face, it's conflicting, you agree? I don't agree that it's conflicting. And no one should put anything on a court order at all. Well, and I guess I agree with that. I do. And I don't think that he did put it on a court order. And I think what needs to be understood is how these forms work. What an attorney does is they fill out the top of the form. And the stamp was played by Mr. Tapper on the form and he presents that to the court. Also the judge should know something. Well, you've got to know that the court should sign orders that like this should they? Well, I believe that the, again, this is the form that the district court has that an attorney must fill out in order to get an oral examination. And in order to have the stamp is not required. Well, actually, your honor, a legend that the stamp is required. I court before it signs this order. I believe it's not required by the court. I believe it is required under the Fair Debt Collection Act. And the reason that that's arguable in terms of some question about that. Well, let me explain why because I think this is important in the easier way for this court to resolve this case. Clearly, documents filed with the court are fall within the provisions of the Fair Debt Collection Act. And an attorney filing things with the court needs to comply with the act. And under 1692 E11, communications by a debt collector need to have the disclosure unless they are formal pleadings. And this falls within the definition of a communication as interpreted by the act. That's what cover letters are for. But this and then of itself is a communication. I don't know, but that's what cover letters are for when you send someone a letter. But in this court in Say Add indicated that the Fair Debt Collection Act defined communication broadly. And they cited to 1692 A2 and they said a communication is the conveying of information regarding a debt directly or indirectly to any person through any medium
. So when Mr. Kapper filled out the top of the form and submitted it to the court, a copy of which is maintained in the court file, that's actually an indirect communication to the debtor. What is your view as to what the dispositive question is whether it is least sophisticated consumer would be misled or confused or whether this particular document here qualifies as a communication or you are arguing both. I'm arguing both and I think under either other either problem communication and you think it's required. And even if it's not required, it's not confusing exactly your honor. So that's that's what you're exactly. And in fact, attorneys have been sued for using these exact forms for not putting the stamp on. So really in attorneys in a dilemma, if you don't put it on your suit for saying it should be there. And if you put it on your suit to say it's confusing. But again, if you go back to the definition of a communication as conveying information regarding a debt and clearly filling out the top of the form communicates information regarding a debt directly or indirectly to any person through any medium. It's an odd kind of hybrid, isn't it? I mean, are these forms in, I mean, I don't know that we should be stringing up on attorney based on the nature of the form. And I think your honor has it exactly right. Really what they're complaint is with the form. And they think that the form. The forms are a little bit odd. I don't disagree, your honor. But how many states have this kind of hybrid form? I'm not aware of that, your honor. But the question is, what is an attorney? Well, what's an attorney to do? What's an attorney to do? Because as I indicated, attorneys have been sued for not putting a disclosure on requests for oral examinations or interrogatories saying... But your point is, it's not right either under the statute or just as a general matter to rack up the attorney based on whatever difficulties are generated by four attorneys, by the nature of this form. I mean, I guess your view is you can't hold the attorney responsible for the nature of the form. Correct. And this is the form that is required to be filled out in order to get the relief sought. So... How do we know that on this record, the positive is cases
. How do we know that? Well, there's certainly no allegation in the complaint that there was some other... The question... How do we know that? Well, based on the allegations... I think, A, you can take judicial notice and the district court... Did you take the court some Maryland law? Well, the district court certainly could as to what is required in the district court under the court rules. And I don't think there's any dispute that this is the form that's required to get this relief. But when you go further than that, you say that this stamp has to be on it. And that's nothing. Well, how do we have... Where's that? Again, and to talk about practice and covering yourself and who had loyshed these strong up for doing it. But I'm talking about where is the evidence that this stamp is required to make this request complete? And, Your Honor, I don't want to mislead you. My argument is not that the Maryland procedure requires the stamp. My argument is Maryland procedure requires using this form. The stamp is required in order for the attorney not to violate the Fair Dett Collection Act. Because this is a communication via a debt collector... Where is that
... Where is that... Is the amount of law? Yeah, under the definition of communication in the statute... The factual question, isn't it? Well, it's a question... No, it's a mixed question, but it's factual. It has to be. Well, the question is, is this a document that conveys information regarding a debt directly or indirectly? It's no dispute that it goes to the debtor, is there? It doesn't. It gets signed and then served by the attorney. It goes to the broad definition of communication. This would be a communication. Exactly. And in, say, add, the issue was whether a communication from a debt collector to the debtor's attorney constituted a communication to the debtor. And this court said it was under this broad definition. But again, a communication that's filed with the court that ultimately gets to the debtor is a communication. And if the stamp is not there, we would have the same lawsuit, except they would be in here arguing, we violated 1692 E11 by not putting the stamp on. Because this is a communication via a debt collector. And the purpose of the statute is not to create a situation where the attorney gets sued if they put it on and sued if they don't. This was clearly an attorney trying to comply with the rules. The stamp is placed right next to the part of the form that says, request for oral examination, which is what the attorney was doing and submitting to the court. I don't know why you couldn't. It seemed to me not too difficult to matter to have two different forms. One, which is purely a communication from the attorney or the debt collector and the other, which is purely a court order. And your honor is correct. And obviously it's not in the record. But I think there have been attempts to try to modify this form for that very reason. Can you cite any case where federal court has said that Maryland's practice is appropriate and will overcome, but otherwise, because it's confusing, notice here. There's no case that you can cite. There's a federal court that okay this practice. No, but there's also no case that asks my question. No, right? That is correct. Okay, now go to this. This is a federal statute. Even if Maryland has this conundrum we have here, it can't preempt federal law. So even if what you say, this stamp is whatever in that sense, we still have to examine the federal law, whether or not you get from under the rigors of it is confusing. So it gets back to the question. It's it may be in a disjunctive, but I think you have a problem. If this is confusing, even if you can't establish it, this is consistent with Maryland law. It's a federal statute and if that's confusing and good faith is not a defense, you agree with that? I do agree with you, Ron. So and good faith nor complying with an inappropriate state rule is an offense. So we still have to get back to whether or not this is confusing. My argument, the defense isn't that we're complying with the court rule. The argument is that Mr. Tapper is complying with the federal statute. So you couldn't have a situation where you say section 1692 E11 requires you to put a stamp on, but other provisions of the section. Yes. So you can have one provision that says you violate the act if you don't put the stamp on and another provision that says if you put the stamp on, you make it confusing and therefore you violate the act. So what at this point do we accept everything? You're the moving party. Do you want to turn us on his head? We're going to take all presumptions on your side. That's not what the law says
. One, which is purely a communication from the attorney or the debt collector and the other, which is purely a court order. And your honor is correct. And obviously it's not in the record. But I think there have been attempts to try to modify this form for that very reason. Can you cite any case where federal court has said that Maryland's practice is appropriate and will overcome, but otherwise, because it's confusing, notice here. There's no case that you can cite. There's a federal court that okay this practice. No, but there's also no case that asks my question. No, right? That is correct. Okay, now go to this. This is a federal statute. Even if Maryland has this conundrum we have here, it can't preempt federal law. So even if what you say, this stamp is whatever in that sense, we still have to examine the federal law, whether or not you get from under the rigors of it is confusing. So it gets back to the question. It's it may be in a disjunctive, but I think you have a problem. If this is confusing, even if you can't establish it, this is consistent with Maryland law. It's a federal statute and if that's confusing and good faith is not a defense, you agree with that? I do agree with you, Ron. So and good faith nor complying with an inappropriate state rule is an offense. So we still have to get back to whether or not this is confusing. My argument, the defense isn't that we're complying with the court rule. The argument is that Mr. Tapper is complying with the federal statute. So you couldn't have a situation where you say section 1692 E11 requires you to put a stamp on, but other provisions of the section. Yes. So you can have one provision that says you violate the act if you don't put the stamp on and another provision that says if you put the stamp on, you make it confusing and therefore you violate the act. So what at this point do we accept everything? You're the moving party. Do you want to turn us on his head? We're going to take all presumptions on your side. That's not what the law says. What are we on? What appeal of what? What was the court order? This missile, right? 12b6. 12b6, correct? Not some regediment, but 12b6. Right. But you want us to take all those assumptions in your favor. I don't think it's a presumption. It's the question of the definition of a communication, which is... That's a mixed facts question. It has to be. Right? Well, I don't think the first one is not your communication, this is the court order. That's one argument. Well, the initial, when the stamp was put on, it's filled out by the attorney and submitted to the court. I don't think a reasonable amount... You've got an affidavit that says that. There's no dispute to that. Well, no, I didn't ask you that. Is that affidavit to that of that? There is not. Well, that's what I thought. How do we just... On 12b6, you get all the benefit you don't have to give an affidavit or anything. I said so, Ipsidics, Ipsidics, Ipsidics. Right? Well, there's.
. What are we on? What appeal of what? What was the court order? This missile, right? 12b6. 12b6, correct? Not some regediment, but 12b6. Right. But you want us to take all those assumptions in your favor. I don't think it's a presumption. It's the question of the definition of a communication, which is... That's a mixed facts question. It has to be. Right? Well, I don't think the first one is not your communication, this is the court order. That's one argument. Well, the initial, when the stamp was put on, it's filled out by the attorney and submitted to the court. I don't think a reasonable amount... You've got an affidavit that says that. There's no dispute to that. Well, no, I didn't ask you that. Is that affidavit to that of that? There is not. Well, that's what I thought. How do we just... On 12b6, you get all the benefit you don't have to give an affidavit or anything. I said so, Ipsidics, Ipsidics, Ipsidics. Right? Well, there's... Again, there's... The allegation is that the stamp is placed on the court and it's... I mean, placed on the document, it's submitted to the court, the court signs it, it's returned to Mr. Tapper and he serves it on the debtor. Right. Those facts... That's what's alleged in the complaint and there's no dispute as to that. There argument is, I suspect that... Look, this is a communication. Yes. It's presented to us by Maryland Law. We're stuck with that. Yes. And in order to comply with the statute, we have to fix the stock. Right. And you can't interpret a statute to say, you violated if you do it and you violated if you don't. I mean, unless we find that in fact, this is not a communication with such a stamp as this is required. If you find.
.. Again, there's... The allegation is that the stamp is placed on the court and it's... I mean, placed on the document, it's submitted to the court, the court signs it, it's returned to Mr. Tapper and he serves it on the debtor. Right. Those facts... That's what's alleged in the complaint and there's no dispute as to that. There argument is, I suspect that... Look, this is a communication. Yes. It's presented to us by Maryland Law. We're stuck with that. Yes. And in order to comply with the statute, we have to fix the stock. Right. And you can't interpret a statute to say, you violated if you do it and you violated if you don't. I mean, unless we find that in fact, this is not a communication with such a stamp as this is required. If you find... Do you have that option somewhere, don't you? No, no, no. No, no. Yes. You do have the option of finding this isn't a communication and then I think it gets to the issue about whether or not it's confusing. And I agree with that. But you do have the option of determining it is a communication as a matter of law and that answers the question. You may have made it not to be right, but this is not even some regesment. It's just my goodness. Well, it ticked ball and twombley so that the theory of recovery has got to be plausible, not just conceivable or possible. That's correct. And again, I mean, to interpret a statute to leave an attorney with no way to comply with it and be subject again, subject litigation, if they do it, subject litigation, if they don't, is an appropriate way to interpret this statute. You mean to tell me a lawyer would have no... You said if you sent this with a cover letter saying your attorney law and that this communication is being sent to you, court documents, you know, and I'm a debt collector and this same information is there that wouldn't be compliant with the statute unless you put the stamp on every page of every... Well, again, if that was done, I'm sure they would be saying that the cover letter was confusing because it was inconsistent with the court order. So they would be making the exact same argument. They could cover a little bit inconsistent with the court order. How would that be? Because they would be getting a document with a cover letter saying this is a communication from a debt collector and they'd be getting a court order. It's the law you're sending you as required by Zoom by Merle and Law to send you what the court has ordered. That's what it would be saying. You would be misrevisited and a document you would say, I'm a debt collector, anything you give me may or may it will be used to cut it back. However attached here to is an order from the court which I am conveying to you. That wouldn't be confusing or at all. It would make common sense and be fair to the least literate because we're talking about rather sort of
.. Do you have that option somewhere, don't you? No, no, no. No, no. Yes. You do have the option of finding this isn't a communication and then I think it gets to the issue about whether or not it's confusing. And I agree with that. But you do have the option of determining it is a communication as a matter of law and that answers the question. You may have made it not to be right, but this is not even some regesment. It's just my goodness. Well, it ticked ball and twombley so that the theory of recovery has got to be plausible, not just conceivable or possible. That's correct. And again, I mean, to interpret a statute to leave an attorney with no way to comply with it and be subject again, subject litigation, if they do it, subject litigation, if they don't, is an appropriate way to interpret this statute. You mean to tell me a lawyer would have no... You said if you sent this with a cover letter saying your attorney law and that this communication is being sent to you, court documents, you know, and I'm a debt collector and this same information is there that wouldn't be compliant with the statute unless you put the stamp on every page of every... Well, again, if that was done, I'm sure they would be saying that the cover letter was confusing because it was inconsistent with the court order. So they would be making the exact same argument. They could cover a little bit inconsistent with the court order. How would that be? Because they would be getting a document with a cover letter saying this is a communication from a debt collector and they'd be getting a court order. It's the law you're sending you as required by Zoom by Merle and Law to send you what the court has ordered. That's what it would be saying. You would be misrevisited and a document you would say, I'm a debt collector, anything you give me may or may it will be used to cut it back. However attached here to is an order from the court which I am conveying to you. That wouldn't be confusing or at all. It would make common sense and be fair to the least literate because we're talking about rather sort of... Notably about what Americans and what people, many town people, under these debts, they have very little skills in that sense. Well, I'll do a respect here. I believe if that was done, they would be here making the exact same argument that the cover letter indicates that this is coming from a debt collector. It's attaching a court order and that would be confusing. So they would be making the exact same argument if you use the cover letter instead of stamp. That would be rather speculative on 12-6, in terms of... It's like a chicken little argument. Well, if you don't rule in our favor, they'll take anything out of the universe and steal silver. Well, it is in speculation. It's tough standing for any plaintiff to meet, isn't it? Well, it is. I don't win if the sky is going to fall in. Therefore, the federal court's supposed to say, if you want the sky to fall in, so you lose. It's not speculation that the failure to put such a stamp will cause litigation because there are cases out there where that's happened. I just can't... You know, you know, you should practice a law a little bit. I just can imagine that an articulate lawyer could not give a cover letter that would make this clear to anybody that I'm a debt collector. I'm a favor to people who owe you money. That you owe money, too. But I am attached to you and all of it comes from the court for you to be present. I just can't believe it. I don't believe that the bar in Maryland, any other state is that bereft of articulation to do that without putting a stamp on a court order like this. And again, the stamp is put on before it's signed by the court
... Notably about what Americans and what people, many town people, under these debts, they have very little skills in that sense. Well, I'll do a respect here. I believe if that was done, they would be here making the exact same argument that the cover letter indicates that this is coming from a debt collector. It's attaching a court order and that would be confusing. So they would be making the exact same argument if you use the cover letter instead of stamp. That would be rather speculative on 12-6, in terms of... It's like a chicken little argument. Well, if you don't rule in our favor, they'll take anything out of the universe and steal silver. Well, it is in speculation. It's tough standing for any plaintiff to meet, isn't it? Well, it is. I don't win if the sky is going to fall in. Therefore, the federal court's supposed to say, if you want the sky to fall in, so you lose. It's not speculation that the failure to put such a stamp will cause litigation because there are cases out there where that's happened. I just can't... You know, you know, you should practice a law a little bit. I just can imagine that an articulate lawyer could not give a cover letter that would make this clear to anybody that I'm a debt collector. I'm a favor to people who owe you money. That you owe money, too. But I am attached to you and all of it comes from the court for you to be present. I just can't believe it. I don't believe that the bar in Maryland, any other state is that bereft of articulation to do that without putting a stamp on a court order like this. And again, the stamp is put on before it's signed by the court. So if you... That is another matter. Well, if you interpret the whole document as a court order, then the stamp has been incorporated into the court order. Like I said, that's a question of not any court should have signed it. Right, but to hold the attorney libel under the Fairdeck Collection Act for that would be inappropriate. In Congress is the one decided that's almost a strict liability statute. But you'd naturally now be holding the libel for something that the judge did. We don't know that because we're not even at some rejection. Well, there's no... To say all these things to us with no offense to you, you know, you're not a no. You're not taking an advantage. Well, again, there are no allegations in the complaint to say anything other than that. It doesn't happen because I said that you put this stamp on here, and the question is not that's confusing. And I... It's like saying you have a fancy court order and someone put on there, this is a joke. Do you think that would have an influence on notwithstanding how nice and official that court order would look if they put this is a joke? Again, there's no allegation in the complaint. That's why I'm asking you to hypothetical. No, but not that it is a joke, but there's no allegation in the complaint that the stamp was added after... I guess you're not going to add a word on that. Well, who'd that have in effect? Yeah
. So if you... That is another matter. Well, if you interpret the whole document as a court order, then the stamp has been incorporated into the court order. Like I said, that's a question of not any court should have signed it. Right, but to hold the attorney libel under the Fairdeck Collection Act for that would be inappropriate. In Congress is the one decided that's almost a strict liability statute. But you'd naturally now be holding the libel for something that the judge did. We don't know that because we're not even at some rejection. Well, there's no... To say all these things to us with no offense to you, you know, you're not a no. You're not taking an advantage. Well, again, there are no allegations in the complaint to say anything other than that. It doesn't happen because I said that you put this stamp on here, and the question is not that's confusing. And I... It's like saying you have a fancy court order and someone put on there, this is a joke. Do you think that would have an influence on notwithstanding how nice and official that court order would look if they put this is a joke? Again, there's no allegation in the complaint. That's why I'm asking you to hypothetical. No, but not that it is a joke, but there's no allegation in the complaint that the stamp was added after... I guess you're not going to add a word on that. Well, who'd that have in effect? Yeah. It could. Do you think it would likely would? I don't know, but those aren't the facts that are alleged in this case. They never are when they're hypothetical. Again, there isn't an allegation that the stamp was added after the court order. So, have they made that allegation? You can see a purpose. It makes no difference. Whether the order that it was added. That's a red herring. What difference does it make? I'm reading this. I read as a whole. I don't know whether this case is not a chicken or egg determination for the reader or the person perhaps who can't read that well. The question is, is that inconsistent? Because a lot of times this is the problem is that. That collective sometime, not a time of your client, just generally. I'll show sometime, and I'll give that after you, after you, after you. If you see anything that says, look, this is from a debt collector, I guess I ain't got it. I'm not even going to that. That's my outright debt. This communication from Decay, and you toss it. But what you really want them to know is look, no, this is an order of the court. That's the confusing part of it. Because you don't want them there. I don't know what the motive may be, and I agree. It's kind of hard pressed to see what it would be. But that's what Congress decided that if you don't get good pay for these important points. And that's the problem. Even Maryland can't save you if their practice is inconsistent with federal laws. The prophecy clause in the Constitution. I agree with that
. It could. Do you think it would likely would? I don't know, but those aren't the facts that are alleged in this case. They never are when they're hypothetical. Again, there isn't an allegation that the stamp was added after the court order. So, have they made that allegation? You can see a purpose. It makes no difference. Whether the order that it was added. That's a red herring. What difference does it make? I'm reading this. I read as a whole. I don't know whether this case is not a chicken or egg determination for the reader or the person perhaps who can't read that well. The question is, is that inconsistent? Because a lot of times this is the problem is that. That collective sometime, not a time of your client, just generally. I'll show sometime, and I'll give that after you, after you, after you. If you see anything that says, look, this is from a debt collector, I guess I ain't got it. I'm not even going to that. That's my outright debt. This communication from Decay, and you toss it. But what you really want them to know is look, no, this is an order of the court. That's the confusing part of it. Because you don't want them there. I don't know what the motive may be, and I agree. It's kind of hard pressed to see what it would be. But that's what Congress decided that if you don't get good pay for these important points. And that's the problem. Even Maryland can't save you if their practice is inconsistent with federal laws. The prophecy clause in the Constitution. I agree with that. All right. But I submit it is if you read the document as a whole, it isn't confusing. And that's what Judge Beddon found. And I believe that's the proper interpretation. If you read, says the order of the court, you read all the disclosures, he found that even the least sophisticated consumer couldn't be confused. And I believe that's correct. All right. Thank you. Mr. Browell. I'll begin by addressing the stamp claim again first. And the first point is that this is not a communication from a debt collector. It's a court order. That's what the Eastern District, Virginia held on the exact issue in the zevgilist case, which we addressed at length in our brief. And in that case, Eastern District of Virginia held that the law offices of, by the name of Greenberg, completed the form, similar forms, the Maryland form, provided by the Hopewell Virginia District Court and submitted it to the clerk of the court. The clerk there upon issued the summons to the Hopewell Sheriff's Office, which served it on zevgilist at her former address by posting it on the door of the residence. The summons was not the communication from Greenberg, but rather a summons issued by an authorized clerk of the court performing official duties. As such, the clerk's communication is not the initial written communication between the creditor and the debtor because the clerk is not a debt collector, is defined by the FDCPA. Well-reasoned opinion from a four-circuit district court that has concluded that this stamp is not required on similar court orders in other states because these are court orders, they're not communications from a debt collector. It's a well-reasoned district court case in this area. Did it wasn't required, or did it was prohibited? I just held that it was not required. There's, as I began at the beginning of the case, there's no case at issue on whether such conduct is prohibited, but simply at the motion to do it. So out of, you know, sometimes attorneys act out of an abundance of caution. If the case you were reading said it's not required, that may or may not be the case, but maybe the attorney feels I don't want to take that chance. Well, you're on it. There's no, you candidly told me there was no holding that communication was prohibited. With your honor, in this case, I think it's simple. We've acknowledged that the form that Maryland prescribes is on itself a little odd
. All right. But I submit it is if you read the document as a whole, it isn't confusing. And that's what Judge Beddon found. And I believe that's the proper interpretation. If you read, says the order of the court, you read all the disclosures, he found that even the least sophisticated consumer couldn't be confused. And I believe that's correct. All right. Thank you. Mr. Browell. I'll begin by addressing the stamp claim again first. And the first point is that this is not a communication from a debt collector. It's a court order. That's what the Eastern District, Virginia held on the exact issue in the zevgilist case, which we addressed at length in our brief. And in that case, Eastern District of Virginia held that the law offices of, by the name of Greenberg, completed the form, similar forms, the Maryland form, provided by the Hopewell Virginia District Court and submitted it to the clerk of the court. The clerk there upon issued the summons to the Hopewell Sheriff's Office, which served it on zevgilist at her former address by posting it on the door of the residence. The summons was not the communication from Greenberg, but rather a summons issued by an authorized clerk of the court performing official duties. As such, the clerk's communication is not the initial written communication between the creditor and the debtor because the clerk is not a debt collector, is defined by the FDCPA. Well-reasoned opinion from a four-circuit district court that has concluded that this stamp is not required on similar court orders in other states because these are court orders, they're not communications from a debt collector. It's a well-reasoned district court case in this area. Did it wasn't required, or did it was prohibited? I just held that it was not required. There's, as I began at the beginning of the case, there's no case at issue on whether such conduct is prohibited, but simply at the motion to do it. So out of, you know, sometimes attorneys act out of an abundance of caution. If the case you were reading said it's not required, that may or may not be the case, but maybe the attorney feels I don't want to take that chance. Well, you're on it. There's no, you candidly told me there was no holding that communication was prohibited. With your honor, in this case, I think it's simple. We've acknowledged that the form that Maryland prescribes is on itself a little odd. So the question again is whether the attorneys are put in the position of meeting themselves, going and coming, and if they include the stamp, then you say, well, this is not a communication and it's confusing. And if they don't include the stamp, then they get sued for saying, well, this is a communication. You should have put it in there. So it puts any lawyer just as a practical matter. You can think of a lawyer sitting around the office saying, you know, I don't know what we should do. We're just going to get hit. Either way, we could be darned if we do and darned if we don't. And that puts people in confronting with, you know, with really practical problems in a difficult bond. Respectfully your honor. I mean, I know you say they shouldn't have included the communication because they did, and you want to challenge it. But, you know, if they had failed to put that, some other attorney or some other case, they could be sued for failing to put it in. You could say, you go ahead. I'm sorry, I said you. No. No, no, I'm just going to say and to add on to that. The practical reality here is that what the courts are doing is transferring the part of the cost of doing business of the court to the litigating party. I mean, if you appear regularly in the General District Court or whatever its analog is in Maryland, you know there are hundreds of these cases. There are thousands of these cases. And so the court makes the person seeking to collect do most of the courts work for it. And then the lawyers put it by filling out all the forms because the clerk of the court doesn't have the staff to do it. So then the lawyer who's required to fill out all these forms is really putting a tough fine, having to decide whether to put the stamp on it or not. Because the lawyer is doing the communication, I mean the communication is from the court, but the lawyer is putting it all in motion and filling out the blanks aside from, aside from, you know, what is required by the judge to fill out. So aren't you really putting the lawyer in an almost impossible situation? No, Your Honor. A lawyer should not make a potentially confusing form more confusing by adding extraneous information. The lawyer simply requests the court order. And if the consumer doesn't appear, the consumer is not put in jail because of the attorney, but because the consumer did not respond to the court's order. And I think to close, we should, the court should tie its decision to Supreme Court precedent on deception in the seminal FTC versus Colgate-Paul Molliv case. The United States Supreme Court noted that one who goes perilily close to an area of prescribed conduct runs the risk that they may cross the line
. You can front it with the issue. The court should decide whether or not this stamp is required. And if it's not required, they went perilily close to the line by making the form more confusing by adding extraneous information. Thank you. Thank you