[00:00:05] Speaker 00:
Case number 19-7119, Phyllis Frank, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, appellant versus Otovest LLC et al.

[00:00:16] Speaker 00:
Three for the appellant, Mr. King for the appellee.

[00:00:22] Speaker 05:
May it please the court.

[00:00:23] Speaker 05:
Good morning, Chief Judge Srinivasan, Judge Griffiths, and Judge Millett.

[00:00:28] Speaker 05:
My name is Morning Gregory, and I represent the appellant, Phyllis Frank.

[00:00:33] Speaker 05:
I've reserved two minutes for rebuttal.

[00:00:37] Speaker 05:
Congressional mandates are not immaterial.

[00:00:43] Speaker 05:
Neither are violations of congressional mandates.

[00:00:49] Speaker 05:
And the debt collectors' false affidavits in this case openly defy congressional mandates under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

[00:01:00] Speaker 05:
Just like sewer service affidavits

[00:01:03] Speaker 05:
openly defy due process, and just like false affidavits of non-military service, openly defy the Servicemember Civil Relief Act.

[00:01:15] Speaker 02:
But the Council, this is Judge Griffith, after Spokeo, don't you have to show that there was an injury that's traceable to these false affidavits?

[00:01:30] Speaker 02:
And what are the injuries Ms.

[00:01:34] Speaker 02:
Frank experienced or suffered that's traceable to the Dooman and Dunn affidavits and the Wagman affidavit?

[00:01:45] Speaker 05:
Two items.

[00:01:46] Speaker 05:
Number one are informational injuries that Congress sought to protect under the Act.

[00:01:55] Speaker 05:
Specifically truthful information, which

[00:01:58] Speaker 02:
But you can't avoid the Article 3 standings.

[00:02:03] Speaker 02:
That's one of the things we learned from Spokeo, right?

[00:02:07] Speaker 02:
What is the Article 3 standing here of Ms.

[00:02:12] Speaker 02:
Frank?

[00:02:12] Speaker 02:
That's what I'm getting at, obviously.

[00:02:15] Speaker 05:
Informational injuries based on untruthful information and sustaining actual damages in the trial court.

[00:02:23] Speaker 05:
Attorney's fees and costs defending the case.

[00:02:28] Speaker 02:
But she said in her deposition that she took no actions based on the do-man and done affidavits.

[00:02:39] Speaker 02:
They didn't affect her, she said, in her own deposition.

[00:02:43] Speaker 05:
Correct.

[00:02:44] Speaker 05:
The inquiry is not what Ms.

[00:02:47] Speaker 05:
Frank did or did not do.

[00:02:48] Speaker 05:
The inquiry is what would the

[00:02:55] Speaker 05:
unsophisticated consumer, or in some courts, the least sophisticated consumer, would it have influenced their decision whether to pay or contest the lawsuit?

[00:03:07] Speaker 02:
And so how does that link to, let's just take the Dooman and the Dunn affidavits?

[00:03:18] Speaker 02:
Sure.

[00:03:20] Speaker 02:
How did that affect her in the litigate?

[00:03:24] Speaker 02:
How did that affect an unsophisticated consumer in their relations with their creditors?

[00:03:31] Speaker 05:
Well, number one, it interferes with their ability to determine potential defenses.

[00:03:36] Speaker 05:
You know, such things as standing, trustworthiness of evidence, and the amount owed.

[00:03:47] Speaker 02:
But did that do that here?

[00:03:51] Speaker 02:
She doesn't allege that, does she?

[00:03:53] Speaker 02:
She says that it didn't impact her.

[00:03:59] Speaker 05:
But again, at least for purposes of the Act, the inquiry is not Ms.

[00:04:05] Speaker 05:
Frank, and she did sustain actual damage.

[00:04:07] Speaker 02:
Oh, no, no, no, no.

[00:04:08] Speaker 02:
I think it, isn't that what, maybe I'm misreading spoke here, but I think that's very much the question.

[00:04:14] Speaker 02:
How did it impact Ms.

[00:04:16] Speaker 05:
Frank?

[00:04:19] Speaker 05:
So again, I'll say the informational injuries based on untruthfulness in the affidavits on probative and material issues of standing, trustworthiness, and the admissibility of evidence in addition to actual damages of attorney's fees and costs to uncover these things.

[00:04:44] Speaker 04:
So how would you distinguish it from the hypothetical and spooky of this suggestion you asked, I'm sorry.

[00:04:50] Speaker 04:
How would you distinguish it from the statement in Spokio to the effect that it's hard to imagine how an incorrect zip code could work concrete harm sufficient to give rise to Article III standing?

[00:05:04] Speaker 04:
You're distinguishing that here.

[00:05:08] Speaker 05:
I would say that Congress didn't seek to protect incorrect zip codes.

[00:05:14] Speaker 05:
It did seek to protect false deceptive and misleading debt collection practices.

[00:05:20] Speaker 04:
That's definitely true, because that's just from the language of statute.

[00:05:22] Speaker 04:
And I guess the question is, does the particular type of falsity that you're alleging on the fact of this case count?

[00:05:32] Speaker 04:
Because you could say that false statements were an issue in Spokeo 2, but then there was one particular falsity that was identified that wouldn't be enough.

[00:05:43] Speaker 04:
And so the question would be, I'm not saying you can't do it or that you haven't done it.

[00:05:47] Speaker 04:
I'm just asking for your assessment of

[00:05:50] Speaker 04:
what the difference would be here.

[00:05:52] Speaker 05:
I think these are congressionally protected rights of Ms.

[00:05:58] Speaker 05:
Frank on material issues.

[00:06:02] Speaker 05:
In fact, I'll go so far as to say outcome determinative issues.

[00:06:08] Speaker 04:
And why is it outcome determinative?

[00:06:11] Speaker 04:
What is it about the alleged misstatement about the affiliation of the two individuals with Autodesk that makes it outcome determinative?

[00:06:20] Speaker 05:
Obviously, you know, a party has to prove standing in order to collect.

[00:06:26] Speaker 05:
They have to prove that the amount owed is correct, and there has to be admissible evidence, including compliance with the UCC.

[00:06:36] Speaker 05:
In this case, UCC notice for a deficiency judgment.

[00:06:39] Speaker 05:
Without it, there can be no judgment.

[00:06:49] Speaker 05:
Did I answer your question, Judge?

[00:06:52] Speaker 04:
Yeah, I think I understand the response you gave.

[00:06:55] Speaker 05:
Okay.

[00:06:57] Speaker 05:
All of these, I was at that on, sorry.

[00:07:01] Speaker 01:
Okay, I have a question about your argument about falsity and identification.

[00:07:07] Speaker 01:
If Christine Dunn in signing this, the affidavit that she did, the paper she did has said, my name is Alice Dunn, then otherwise said, and I work for

[00:07:21] Speaker 01:
Andrews and Associates, which is a servicing agent for AutoVest.

[00:07:25] Speaker 01:
So the only mistake was she gave the wrong first name.

[00:07:31] Speaker 01:
Would you have a claim for that?

[00:07:37] Speaker 01:
It'll be just as small.

[00:07:40] Speaker 05:
Yeah.

[00:07:40] Speaker 05:
I would say that names generally are not actionable.

[00:07:44] Speaker 05:
However, if we're talking about an affidavit, I think there's an obligation

[00:07:50] Speaker 05:
to provide meaningful disclosure, you know, an incorrect first name probably isn't, you know, meaningful and therefore not actionable if we're talking about a letter definitely.

[00:08:03] Speaker 01:
I'm sorry?

[00:08:04] Speaker 05:
No, go ahead.

[00:08:05] Speaker 05:
I'm sorry.

[00:08:08] Speaker 01:
What if it made it hard for you to figure out who this person was?

[00:08:14] Speaker 01:
You couldn't find, you went on the website, you couldn't find any Alice Dunn working for

[00:08:21] Speaker 01:
Andrew's an associate.

[00:08:24] Speaker 05:
That certainly could influence an unsophisticated consumer's decision whether to contest or concede the suit.

[00:08:32] Speaker 01:
How?

[00:08:34] Speaker 05:
If she doesn't, well, and again, I'm just thinking of this case, but hypothetically, if the consumer has never done business with this debt collector, they may not know if they even owe them a debt at all.

[00:08:50] Speaker 05:
let alone the amount that the collector is claiming.

[00:08:55] Speaker 05:
Because you can't tie that specific individual to a particular debt collector, at least the one that's suing her.

[00:09:02] Speaker 01:
So you think it would be actionable if she had said Halis Dunn rather than Christine Dunn?

[00:09:08] Speaker 05:
Yeah, now that I've thought through the court's hypothetical, yes, but I was thinking more generally in telephone calls,

[00:09:19] Speaker 05:
names that are typically not actionable.

[00:09:23] Speaker 05:
But in the case of an affidavit, certainly that could be actionable.

[00:09:37] Speaker 05:
A couple of items.

[00:09:41] Speaker 01:
You mentioned attorney's fees and costs here.

[00:09:47] Speaker 01:
But as I read her deposition, Ms.

[00:09:49] Speaker 01:
Frank said none of these misrepresentations or misstatements are what caused her to retain an attorney.

[00:10:00] Speaker 01:
So that's not an injury that arises from, even assuming that could satisfy Article 3, that's not an injury that arises from the misrepresentations, is it?

[00:10:17] Speaker 05:
She sustained actual injury, was it because of Duman's false statement or?

[00:10:26] Speaker 01:
Well, all the false statements collectively that you referenced, the misrepresentations that you referenced, all three, the gun, Duman, and attorney's fee.

[00:10:35] Speaker 05:
Well, she did testify she was confused as to why she would be responsible for attorney's fee, so that certainly is tied

[00:10:42] Speaker 05:
to, you know, retaining counsel, which is another reason why she incurred all those costs and fees.

[00:10:49] Speaker 01:
Where did she say that?

[00:10:50] Speaker 01:
That she was confused about why she'd be responsible and so that's why she hired an attorney and incurred fees?

[00:10:56] Speaker 05:
Uh, it was in our brief.

[00:11:03] Speaker 05:
May I provide that to you on rebuttal, Judge Mallette?

[00:11:07] Speaker 01:
Absolutely.

[00:11:07] Speaker 01:
Sure.

[00:11:08] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:11:08] Speaker 05:
Thank you.

[00:11:13] Speaker 05:
Just one quick point, because I know I'm out of time, that I really need the court to understand.

[00:11:21] Speaker 05:
The consequences of not reversing this case and allowing false testimony undermines not just the FDCPA or the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, but the requirements in superior court

[00:11:42] Speaker 05:
of firsthand personal knowledge to obtain a deficiency judgment in repossession cases.

[00:11:51] Speaker 05:
And probably, maybe even more importantly, signaling to other debt collectors that false testimony will be countenanced, at least in the District of Columbia.

[00:12:06] Speaker 04:
Thank you, Mr. Gregory.

[00:12:07] Speaker 04:
Let me make sure my colleagues don't have any further questions for you at this time.

[00:12:12] Speaker 04:
If not, we'll hear from you in the rebuttal, and we'll hear from Mr. King now.

[00:12:18] Speaker 03:
Good morning, Your Honors.

[00:12:19] Speaker 03:
May it please the court?

[00:12:20] Speaker 03:
My name is Scott King.

[00:12:21] Speaker 03:
I represent the Appalese Autovest and Michael Andrews and Associates.

[00:12:26] Speaker 03:
The Appalese asked the court to affirm.

[00:12:28] Speaker 03:
Ms.

[00:12:29] Speaker 03:
Frank's legal arguments suffer from a common flaw, the undisputed facts that are on the record in this case.

[00:12:35] Speaker 03:
While in district court, Ms.

[00:12:36] Speaker 03:
Frank had three theories, we're now down to two, the contingency theory,

[00:12:41] Speaker 03:
in the employment theory.

[00:12:43] Speaker 03:
I'm going to talk about the contingency theory first because I can dispose of it quickly.

[00:12:49] Speaker 03:
Ms.

[00:12:49] Speaker 03:
Frank asserts that Autovest violated the FDCPA by improperly seeking to collect from her attorney fees calculated on a contingency fee basis.

[00:13:00] Speaker 03:
That simply didn't happen.

[00:13:02] Speaker 03:
The balance due on this contract was $9,365.

[00:13:06] Speaker 03:
Autovest lawyer in the elections action, Mr. Wagner, testified that he had a 20% contingency fee.

[00:13:14] Speaker 03:
20% of $9,365 is $1,873.

[00:13:21] Speaker 03:
But in the collections action, Autovest did not seek attorney fees of $1,873.

[00:13:25] Speaker 03:
It only sought attorney fees of $895.

[00:13:31] Speaker 03:
Mr. Wagner calculated those fees based upon the load start method,

[00:13:36] Speaker 03:
a reasonable number of hours times a reasonable rate.

[00:13:39] Speaker 01:
Can you just point me in the record to where are you talking about other than in the attorney's fee affidavit?

[00:13:48] Speaker 01:
So where else was it that you specifically said we're only seeking $895 in attorney fees for some place other than the affidavit?

[00:13:57] Speaker 03:
It was in the attorney fee's affidavit, Your Honor.

[00:14:00] Speaker 01:
Okay, so that affidavit

[00:14:03] Speaker 01:
On the front, it talks about the contingency, 20% and this one's a 20%.

[00:14:06] Speaker 01:
And on the back, it does this calculation.

[00:14:10] Speaker 01:
Where does it say all we're seeking is the 895 in that affidavit?

[00:14:15] Speaker 01:
It just has two different numbers and then says, uh, the amount of attorney fees requested, but doesn't say what that amount is.

[00:14:22] Speaker 01:
So how does she close to know which one is what they're requesting?

[00:14:24] Speaker 01:
Did I just miss it?

[00:14:26] Speaker 03:
Your honor, I'm trying to pull that up as well.

[00:14:29] Speaker 01:
Do you have the, uh, 98, 99?

[00:14:34] Speaker 03:
Hang on one second.

[00:14:49] Speaker 01:
I just don't see where they say which of these two numbers we're seeking.

[00:14:53] Speaker 03:
It's 895.

[00:14:56] Speaker 03:
It's in the total.

[00:14:57] Speaker 03:
In fact, it's highlighted in red on the

[00:15:00] Speaker 01:
I know that number is there, but then on the front there's, at least on my copy, I don't know who put this box around it, but there's a box around the 20% contingency.

[00:15:09] Speaker 01:
My fee on this case is a 20% contingency fee of any monies we covered.

[00:15:14] Speaker 01:
So there's a box, I don't know who did that box.

[00:15:17] Speaker 01:
So you've got a box around that and you've got a box around 895, but then I don't see anything after that says which of those two boxes is what's being sought in this case.

[00:15:26] Speaker 03:
There would be no reason to list the detail of the amounts of the time spent, nor of the hourly rates if they were not seeking attorney fees using the load start method.

[00:15:40] Speaker 01:
If he was only seeking attorney fees on a consistent... I'm asking how an unsophisticated consumer... You said it was crystal clear, you could take care of this easily, that all they were seeking was $895, and I'm telling you,

[00:15:53] Speaker 01:
Assume I'm an unsophisticated consumer that if I were to read this, I would see a box that says 20% contingency fee, and I would see another box that says 895, and I would read all the other sentences around there and say, which one are they seeking in this case?

[00:16:11] Speaker 01:
And I wouldn't see it anywhere.

[00:16:13] Speaker 01:
That seems awfully confusing.

[00:16:17] Speaker 01:
I'm scared by that 20% contingency thing.

[00:16:20] Speaker 01:
That's a scary thing.

[00:16:21] Speaker 01:
And there's all the other competitions, but I'm not a lawyer.

[00:16:23] Speaker 01:
I'm an unsubstantiated consumer.

[00:16:25] Speaker 01:
I don't know why all that stuff is there.

[00:16:28] Speaker 01:
But you have to at least say which one you're seeking.

[00:16:32] Speaker 03:
Your Honor, I would believe that the affidavit does state that they were seeking the 895.

[00:16:39] Speaker 03:
That is the amount in the total column.

[00:16:41] Speaker 03:
Ms.

[00:16:42] Speaker 03:
Frank, of course, didn't pay that amount or any other amount.

[00:16:45] Speaker 01:
But the whole point of it is... But you'll agree they're both in boxes, right?

[00:16:51] Speaker 01:
I'm not saying, there's no doubt that that's the total of all the little numbers up on top of that.

[00:16:57] Speaker 01:
I'm not just seeing your math, I'm just saying, you've got two boxes here, and I'm just asking whether you're an un-statisticated consumer.

[00:17:05] Speaker 01:
As a matter of law, an un-statisticated consumer.

[00:17:08] Speaker 03:
Your Honor, I believe, I'm sorry, I did not mean to interrupt.

[00:17:12] Speaker 01:
No, no, no, I'm just, go ahead.

[00:17:14] Speaker 01:
I think you know my question.

[00:17:16] Speaker 03:
I do, I believe it's in the motion for default.

[00:17:19] Speaker 01:
Okay, so I was looking at the wrong document.

[00:17:21] Speaker 03:
I think so, Your Honor, and I'm trying to locate that right now.

[00:17:26] Speaker 03:
I don't know if it's in the appendix or not, but it is in the motion for default.

[00:17:44] Speaker 01:
Okay, so that's something we don't have here in front of us.

[00:17:47] Speaker 03:
It's in the record, but I don't believe it's within the appendix, Your Honor.

[00:17:51] Speaker 04:
I thought you were relying mainly on this item, which is why the other one wouldn't be in the Joint Appendix.

[00:18:06] Speaker 03:
I'm sorry, I didn't catch your question.

[00:18:08] Speaker 04:
I didn't realize that there was another document that you were relying on.

[00:18:12] Speaker 04:
I thought your reliance was on this document that's in the Joint Appendix, 98 to 99, unless maybe the other one's in there too.

[00:18:21] Speaker 03:
I'm not seeing it, Your Honor, in there, but I know in the motion to default, I believe that's what specifies the number.

[00:18:38] Speaker 03:
And I'm not seeing where that, I don't believe it is in the record.

[00:18:45] Speaker 03:
I'm sorry, I don't believe it's in the joint appendix.

[00:18:47] Speaker 03:
It is in the record, but I don't believe it's in the joint appendix.

[00:18:55] Speaker 03:
Okay, and then... I'm looking at the motion for default, Your Honor.

[00:19:01] Speaker 03:
It says $895.

[00:19:02] Speaker 03:
Okay.

[00:19:08] Speaker 01:
Maybe you can provide a copy of that to the court.

[00:19:10] Speaker 03:
Yeah, we can point that out to you where that is in the record.

[00:19:14] Speaker 03:
It's part of the summary judgment proceedings.

[00:19:18] Speaker 02:
Mr. King, this is Judge Griffith.

[00:19:21] Speaker 02:
You've been arguing a merits question.

[00:19:24] Speaker 02:
Would you argue the standing issue for us?

[00:19:27] Speaker 02:
As you can tell, several of us were interested in speaking with your friend about the standing question.

[00:19:37] Speaker 02:
Would you help us think that through?

[00:19:40] Speaker 03:
Your Honor, there is absolutely no actual injury with respect to Ms.

[00:19:46] Speaker 03:
Frank.

[00:19:47] Speaker 03:
Miss Frank testified that the items that are at issue in this case didn't matter to her.

[00:19:53] Speaker 03:
She testified that she neither took action nor failed to take action with respect to those items.

[00:20:02] Speaker 03:
Spokeo requires an actual injury to the plaintiff before the court.

[00:20:09] Speaker 03:
I agree with the analysis that Spokeo bars this claim

[00:20:16] Speaker 03:
Because as to Ms.

[00:20:17] Speaker 03:
Frank, she suffered no injury.

[00:20:20] Speaker 02:
You heard your friend's argument that she's got to go to court, she's in litigation, court costs, and those are some of the injuries she suffered.

[00:20:32] Speaker 03:
None of those injuries, however, are traceable to her claims in this case.

[00:20:38] Speaker 03:
While she incurred attorney fees, as the district judge noted,

[00:20:43] Speaker 03:
She incurred those because she did not think she owed the money to AutoVest, not with respect to any of the items that we're talking about.

[00:20:51] Speaker 03:
So none of those in Spokeo in Article 3 requires the injury to be directly traceable to the violation.

[00:20:59] Speaker 01:
What about her claims in her deposition?

[00:21:02] Speaker 01:
They claimed about stress, fear of being taken advantage of?

[00:21:10] Speaker 01:
What about those?

[00:21:11] Speaker 03:
Those all relate directly to her assertion that she did not know AutoVest and was not aware that the contract had been assigned to AutoVest.

[00:21:23] Speaker 03:
There were letters to that, in fact, telling her, but she did not receive them prior to the court action.

[00:21:28] Speaker 01:
But those... The information you read... Please, I'm sorry, I can't hear you.

[00:21:33] Speaker 03:
But her claims of being scammed

[00:21:36] Speaker 03:
had to do with her not knowing all of us that had nothing to do with any of the issues that are the subject of this complaint.

[00:21:43] Speaker 01:
Well, it's not the deposition.

[00:21:44] Speaker 01:
I mean, you asked... I don't mean you personally.

[00:21:47] Speaker 01:
I don't know who it was, but there were questions, you know, as to the statement by Mr. Duman.

[00:21:53] Speaker 01:
Did you refrain from taking action?

[00:21:55] Speaker 01:
Did you take action?

[00:21:56] Speaker 01:
Did you spend money?

[00:21:57] Speaker 01:
But I didn't see any questions about whether these falsities

[00:22:02] Speaker 01:
You're making an assumption, I think, about what the source of the stress and fear of being taken advantage of, but that wasn't actually asked of the deposition, whether that misrepresentation caused any of the stress or fear that you claim you suffered here.

[00:22:19] Speaker 01:
You're making an inference.

[00:22:21] Speaker 03:
Are you not?

[00:22:22] Speaker 03:
I believe that elsewhere that she testified the reason for her stress was because she did not know who Autovest was.

[00:22:33] Speaker 03:
Your Honor, the reference in the record on the motion for default judgment is Document 34-7.

[00:22:43] Speaker 03:
It's Exhibit 7, Autovest Motion for Summer Judgment.

[00:22:47] Speaker 01:
Thanks.

[00:22:49] Speaker 01:
Actually, why did Mr. Duman say he was an employee and a Senior Technical Product Manager for Autovest under oath?

[00:22:58] Speaker 03:
Your Honor, the answer to that is not in the record.

[00:23:03] Speaker 01:
It was false, though, right?

[00:23:04] Speaker 01:
I'm a custodian of records and a senior technical product manager employed by Audubet.

[00:23:09] Speaker 01:
Those were false statements under oath?

[00:23:12] Speaker 03:
Your Honor, they were false statements.

[00:23:14] Speaker 03:
He was.

[00:23:14] Speaker 03:
That was a mistake.

[00:23:15] Speaker 01:
And under oath when he said that.

[00:23:21] Speaker 03:
Okay.

[00:23:21] Speaker 03:
Your Honor, that is correct.

[00:23:22] Speaker 03:
It was a false statement, but it was false statements.

[00:23:27] Speaker 03:
I believe the answer to that question, again it's not in the record, but I believe that the answer to that question is that the attorney for this case prepared the affidavit and Mr. Dooming should have corrected it before he signed it, but he didn't and that's our mistake that gives rise to the claims.

[00:23:47] Speaker 01:
Okay, thank you.

[00:23:53] Speaker 03:
Your Honor, the per se rule that

[00:23:57] Speaker 03:
Mr. Gregory is advocating for violations of 1692E, makes hash the least sophisticated consumer standard, it makes hash the materiality requirement that courts across the country have helped apply to the interpretation of the FDCPA.

[00:24:17] Speaker 03:
In addition, it also violates Spokeo because under that interpretation, any false statement, no matter how trivial,

[00:24:26] Speaker 03:
would give rise to a violation and that's simply not the case under Article 3.

[00:24:34] Speaker 03:
There has to be actual concrete injury tied to the violation and in this case there is no such injury on the record.

[00:24:46] Speaker 03:
The employment theory that has been advocated on this record

[00:24:53] Speaker 03:
has no merit, the court should affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment.

[00:25:00] Speaker 03:
I was going to, I don't know if I have any more time left.

[00:25:03] Speaker 03:
I thought I heard bells.

[00:25:06] Speaker 04:
I think so, but you can wrap up.

[00:25:09] Speaker 03:
All right.

[00:25:10] Speaker 03:
Well, I was going to move to another point.

[00:25:12] Speaker 03:
But if I don't have any more time, unless the court has any other questions, Otto Vest and Michael Andrews and Associates

[00:25:21] Speaker 03:
suggest that the district court analyze this case correctly.

[00:25:26] Speaker 03:
The facts of this case control its outcome.

[00:25:29] Speaker 03:
The facts show that summary judgment was appropriately rendered.

[00:25:32] Speaker 03:
And with that, I will conclude.

[00:25:34] Speaker 03:
Thank you very much.

[00:25:37] Speaker 04:
Thank you, Mr. King.

[00:25:38] Speaker 04:
Mr. Gregory, we'll give you your rebuttal.

[00:25:42] Speaker 05:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:25:44] Speaker 05:
Judge Millett, you asked me about the testimony from Ms.

[00:25:47] Speaker 05:
Frank concerning her being confused about the attorney's fees.

[00:25:50] Speaker 05:
that can be found in the record at JA-47, which is her deposition testimony, lines 12 through 15.

[00:26:01] Speaker 05:
Couple quick points.

[00:26:03] Speaker 05:
The fee affidavit from Wagman is the only fee affidavit in the underlying case.

[00:26:17] Speaker 05:
As Judge Millett, you pointed out,

[00:26:19] Speaker 05:
One page says one thing, another page says another.

[00:26:24] Speaker 05:
And an unsophisticated consumer wouldn't know, just like Ms.

[00:26:29] Speaker 05:
Frank wouldn't know, what she's supposed to pay or why she's even having to pay it.

[00:26:36] Speaker 05:
And I will point out that the unsophisticated consumer is below average intelligence and sophistication.

[00:26:47] Speaker 05:
I think another important point

[00:26:50] Speaker 05:
is that the appellants never had a right, contractually or legally, to recover fees in the first place.

[00:27:01] Speaker 05:
With respect to Spokio, Ms.

[00:27:08] Speaker 05:
Frank suffered a concrete injury because the information injuries in particular that she suffered are protected by Congress

[00:27:19] Speaker 05:
which therefore require no additional proof of harm.

[00:27:29] Speaker 05:
And unless the court has any other questions, we would ask that the course reverse and remand.

[00:27:39] Speaker 04:
Any other questions?

[00:27:40] Speaker 04:
Thank you, Mr. Gregory, and thank you, Mr. King.

[00:27:43] Speaker 04:
We'll take the case under submission.

[00:27:47] Speaker ?:
Thank you.