[00:00:02] Speaker 01:
Good afternoon.

[00:00:03] Speaker 01:
May it please the court, Aaron Tiller, appearing on behalf of the appellant, Tracy Davis.

[00:00:09] Speaker 01:
Your honor, as I would ask that I could reserve two minutes for rebuttal.

[00:00:13] Speaker 01:
Sure.

[00:00:13] Speaker 01:
Keep track of your own time.

[00:00:15] Speaker 01:
I will, your honor.

[00:00:16] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:00:17] Speaker 01:
This case is a case of strict statutory construction.

[00:00:22] Speaker 01:
The courts are bound to follow the plain language of the statute unless it results in an absurd result.

[00:00:30] Speaker 01:
And the plain language of this statute, the operative statute is 47 U.S.

[00:00:34] Speaker 01:
Code section 227B1, is that a plaintiff can support a claim under the TCPA, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act,

[00:00:46] Speaker 01:
under three grounds.

[00:00:47] Speaker 01:
It's disjunctive, either the use of an ATDS, an automated telephone dialing system, or a pre-recorded voice, or an artificial voice.

[00:00:58] Speaker 00:
Yeah, but isn't this really a pleading case?

[00:01:01] Speaker 01:
It is.

[00:01:02] Speaker 00:
In your honor, it's a well, respectfully, the question is, it seems to me the question is whether or not any of those alternative claims were adequately pledged.

[00:01:16] Speaker 01:
That actual issue, Your Honor, and we could have made this more clear in our reply.

[00:01:20] Speaker 01:
I mean, if you look at the order itself, page five, the September 28, 2023 order by the district court stated that FRCP rule eight, those grounds, that this motion to dismiss was denied.

[00:01:31] Speaker 01:
So it was denied in part, granted in part.

[00:01:36] Speaker 01:
The motion to dismiss under rule eight, that was denied.

[00:01:40] Speaker 01:
It stated that we met the rule eight pleading standard.

[00:01:43] Speaker 01:
And then went on to so responding.

[00:01:45] Speaker 03:
But how could it say that you met the pleading standard for a claim that it then said you didn't have?

[00:01:53] Speaker 01:
Well there's two, so the rule eight pleading standards, a short and plain statement, we understand Twombly, we understand Ashcroft.

[00:02:02] Speaker 01:
We met our burden by establishing facts.

[00:02:05] Speaker 01:
Now the court under 12b6 can look at those facts and state, I can see no grounds by which to not grant this motion because

[00:02:16] Speaker 01:
We pled the facts.

[00:02:17] Speaker 01:
This was a customer of rocket loans.

[00:02:19] Speaker 01:
They had the telephone number of the appellate and They they this was they were calls with two Italian telephone after revoking.

[00:02:27] Speaker 03:
Yes for me part of the difficulty here comes from so I mean I've actually already got the system connected and the video is off.

[00:02:35] Speaker 03:
So just Buzz me again when it when it comes up Okay the

[00:02:44] Speaker 05:
Under the Facebook case, the other party of which I'm forgetting, the ATDS part is out, right?

[00:02:56] Speaker 05:
So we're talking about the artificial or pre-recorded voice.

[00:03:00] Speaker 05:
And for me, the difficulty is that throughout the complaint, you alleged that they used an ATDS

[00:03:07] Speaker 05:
and slash or pre-recorded or artificial voice.

[00:03:10] Speaker 05:
So do you think that's adequate to under ICBAL to make a plausible allegation of artificial or pre-recorded voice claim?

[00:03:20] Speaker 01:
I think, Your Honor, what occurred here was there was 150 calls, as was alleged in the complaint, that there was a letter sent revoking consent on October 26, 2022, and from that date until the complaint, there was multiple calls.

[00:03:33] Speaker 01:
Some were used in automated telephone dialing system and were not pre-recorded calls.

[00:03:38] Speaker 01:
Some were artificial calls and some were pre-recorded.

[00:03:41] Speaker 01:
There's an issue between artificial and pre-recorded.

[00:03:44] Speaker 01:
They're pre-recorded, but using a computer, and that's where Discovery helps us really flesh out.

[00:03:49] Speaker 01:
Is it an artificial voice?

[00:03:51] Speaker 01:
Is it actually a pre-recorded voice?

[00:03:52] Speaker 05:
Right, but as you alleged it, it could also have been an ATDS, right?

[00:03:57] Speaker 01:
Some calls were.

[00:03:58] Speaker 05:
Well, but I guess, I mean, so this is sort of the basic pleading standards question.

[00:04:04] Speaker 05:
Suppose you have a battery claim.

[00:04:06] Speaker 05:
And the allegation in the complaint is, defendant looked at me funny and or punched me.

[00:04:16] Speaker 05:
Do you think that that is sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss?

[00:04:20] Speaker 01:
I think in that distinguishable situation, no, because it was one event, and if they punched them and or looked at them funny, I do believe these standards.

[00:04:32] Speaker 01:
But I believe for the purposes of FRCPA, even Rule 9, who, what, where, when, how, they're on notice.

[00:04:38] Speaker 01:
that Ashcroft and Twombly, they were merely stating, we need more.

[00:04:43] Speaker 01:
We need more than just, they violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

[00:04:47] Speaker 01:
So we gave them more.

[00:04:48] Speaker 01:
We gave them the date of the letter.

[00:04:50] Speaker 01:
We gave them the date of the phone calls.

[00:04:52] Speaker 01:
We gave them the description of the calls.

[00:04:54] Speaker 01:
But many courts have just completely rise the level above at mere 12b6 and rule 8.

[00:05:01] Speaker 01:
This is not a fraud claim under rule 9, that we need extra, extra higher level of specificity.

[00:05:08] Speaker 01:
The appellee in this case knows what occurred.

[00:05:10] Speaker 01:
They know who the client is they know to pull the call records They have it they they're put on notice of what is occurring here the true air in this case was that the court Suisse font a because these arguments were not actually Facebook was not cited to in any of the briefing the court Suisse font a looked at the recent decision of Facebook versus de Gui

[00:05:31] Speaker 01:
where it stated that you have the number, you cannot, you couldn't have just automatically generated this phone number.

[00:05:37] Speaker 01:
This was a number you had on file.

[00:05:38] Speaker 01:
It wasn't a random sequentially generated number.

[00:05:42] Speaker 01:
And so the court, we did not concede, we do not contest that that portion of those claims for the HDS

[00:05:49] Speaker 01:
should have been dismissed.

[00:05:50] Speaker 01:
The problem was the court never reviewed and stated they did also allege these two other... Well, maybe, right?

[00:05:57] Speaker 05:
Maybe one lesson from this is that the use of and slash or in drafting leaves people uncertain exactly which one you're saying, right?

[00:06:09] Speaker 01:
And I think in that situation, if there was a Rule 8 issue,

[00:06:13] Speaker 01:
But the real, as we stated throughout our notice of appeal, the issue on appeal, the heir was granting this without leave to amend.

[00:06:21] Speaker 01:
The heir was denying this with prejudice.

[00:06:24] Speaker 01:
It was denied with prejudice under 12b6.

[00:06:27] Speaker 00:
So what would you add?

[00:06:29] Speaker 03:
The best I could add is take out and I mean or take out or and just say they also use this because that's what occurred here we had couldn't you also describe I mean the question whether you have to but couldn't you also say why you knew that it was that like we heard it we we.

[00:06:46] Speaker 03:
There was a pause.

[00:06:48] Speaker 03:
There was a beep and then a voice came on.

[00:06:50] Speaker 03:
I asked a question.

[00:06:52] Speaker 03:
It didn't respond to me.

[00:06:53] Speaker 03:
I mean, isn't that what's really before us is do you need to add more?

[00:06:59] Speaker 03:
I mean, you've got the and or issue.

[00:07:02] Speaker 03:
But I'm wondering if the bigger question is, do you need something more to describe why you knew these 150 calls?

[00:07:08] Speaker 03:
Or you could just say, we know that 150 calls are never made without the use of auto dialing.

[00:07:14] Speaker 01:
Yeah, that wasn't the allegation.

[00:07:16] Speaker 01:
I mean, the allegation was, yes.

[00:07:18] Speaker 01:
Could I have, I mean, I wouldn't be here today if possibly we would have had, and in the future, I've had a complaint under this.

[00:07:25] Speaker 01:
I would add more.

[00:07:26] Speaker 01:
I would add a resuscitation of the call.

[00:07:28] Speaker 01:
Sometimes, though, we're not allowed to have that information without discovery, and that's the purpose of this lower standard at the pleading level, that we all factual allegations are seen as true and looked at in the light most favorable to the movement party, the plaintiff in this case.

[00:07:42] Speaker 01:
That's the reason is because we don't have the benefit of discovery.

[00:07:46] Speaker 01:
We have a client who,

[00:07:48] Speaker 01:
there's automated robotic calls should the word of robotic been thrown into the complaint ideally I would have done so I'll concede that fact but these are technical small

[00:07:59] Speaker 01:
things, factual allegations that could have beefed up this complaint.

[00:08:03] Speaker 01:
But the true issue is, at this stage, on the original complaint- You should get an amendment.

[00:08:09] Speaker 03:
If there's a problem, you want an opportunity to amend.

[00:08:12] Speaker 01:
As the courts have said, it should be liberally given, only in situations where it just truly is no amendment, it's futile, or you've given plaintiffs counsel four, they're on their fifth amended complaint, and then it's an abuse of discretion if they decide, you just can't do it.

[00:08:27] Speaker 01:
This case, it was the original complaint, and it was dismissed with prejudice.

[00:08:31] Speaker 00:
You seem to be kind of implicitly conceding that your client never heard the voice.

[00:08:41] Speaker 01:
No, no, that's not.

[00:08:42] Speaker 01:
This is something that if this was granted with leave to amend, we would have just beefed up those factual allegations.

[00:08:50] Speaker 01:
The plaintiff did hear the voices.

[00:08:53] Speaker 01:
It was robotic.

[00:08:53] Speaker 01:
It was the same message over and over and over,

[00:08:56] Speaker 01:
Once we get discovery, we'll get those pre-recorded voices and it'll be clear.

[00:09:02] Speaker 01:
The issue is at the pleading stage, I could attach the recording, transcribe it into the record.

[00:09:10] Speaker 01:
There's obviously, I could always plead a better complaint, but at this stage, the true heir is

[00:09:15] Speaker 01:
to at this stage, we pled to who, what, where, where, how, we just ask that we, but I think it's enough for rule eight, maybe not rule nine, but rule eight, and clearly enough to get relieved to amend, as there can be a claim due to the fact that this is disjunctive statute that you could have done under a recorded voice.

[00:09:39] Speaker 02:
Okay, we'll give you some, you've got a little bit of time for rebuttal.

[00:09:42] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:10:13] Speaker 04:
Go ahead.

[00:10:13] Speaker 04:
Good afternoon.

[00:10:15] Speaker 04:
My name is Sanford Schatz, and I'm appearing on behalf of defendant and appellee Rock Loans Marketplace, LLC, DBA Rocket Loans.

[00:10:24] Speaker 04:
The issue before us today is, as you suggested, did the district court properly dismiss the case when Tracy Davis did not allege sufficient facts, or frankly, any facts, to show that Rocket Loans used a prerecorded or artificial voice

[00:10:42] Speaker 03:
Did the district court weigh in on that issue?

[00:10:45] Speaker 03:
I thought the district court didn't reach it because the district court decided that there was no legal case here.

[00:10:54] Speaker 04:
The district court explicitly said there is no ATDS.

[00:10:59] Speaker 04:
Right.

[00:10:59] Speaker 04:
The district court had the entire complaint in front of it and said, based on the, well, didn't say it, but it implied, based on the allegations in the complaint, there is no basis for leave to amend.

[00:11:12] Speaker 04:
Leave to amend wasn't didn't say that.

[00:11:14] Speaker 05:
It just didn't say anything about it.

[00:11:16] Speaker 04:
It did.

[00:11:16] Speaker 04:
It said, well, without right with prejudice, no leave to amend.

[00:11:19] Speaker 03:
But I mean, our case law clearly says that you should be given.

[00:11:24] Speaker 03:
You either have to explain the district court has some duty to explain futility.

[00:11:28] Speaker 03:
You can't just our case law seems pretty clear on this, although tell me if I'm wrong that you can't just implicitly dismiss with prejudice without making a determination of futility.

[00:11:38] Speaker 04:
I'm smiling because no, I cannot tell you you're wrong.

[00:11:42] Speaker 04:
So, sorry, I can't.

[00:11:43] Speaker 04:
I can try and make arguments for you.

[00:11:44] Speaker 03:
I mean, look, I'm not saying I love 9th Circuit law on that issue either, but that's what we got.

[00:11:49] Speaker 04:
I would love to tap dance for you.

[00:11:52] Speaker 04:
No, but that's not what we have here.

[00:11:55] Speaker 04:
Here we have the case where the complaint was pledged.

[00:11:58] Speaker 04:
and no leave was to amend was requested in the opposition.

[00:12:02] Speaker 05:
Okay, when the opening brief was- I'm sorry, I thought on year 55, I think it is, the plaintiff's opposition, last line, alternatively, should this court grant defendant's motion to dismiss in whole or in part, plaintiff respectfully requests leave to amend the complaint?

[00:12:23] Speaker 04:
Hang on, I have the proof of service.

[00:12:26] Speaker 04:
I want one page too far.

[00:12:27] Speaker 05:
It's EER 55, page 12 of the opposition.

[00:12:31] Speaker 04:
Yes.

[00:12:31] Speaker 04:
But one request for leave to amend and says, and here's what I would do, or we have these grounds, it never came up.

[00:12:39] Speaker 04:
But even if he asks for it in the opposition that you're talking about, the opening brief doesn't mention it.

[00:12:47] Speaker 04:
The opening brief doesn't address it.

[00:12:50] Speaker 05:
So now you mean the opening brief in this court?

[00:12:54] Speaker 04:
Correct.

[00:12:55] Speaker 04:
It talks about the error and focuses on artificial and prerecorded.

[00:12:59] Speaker 04:
It doesn't talk about the Rosenthal Act.

[00:13:02] Speaker 04:
It says nothing about the leave to amend.

[00:13:05] Speaker 04:
And when you get to the standard of review in the opening brief, it talks about the standard for reviewing granting a 12b6 and an eight de novo review and says nothing about leave to amend.

[00:13:18] Speaker 04:
That's raised in the appellee brief.

[00:13:21] Speaker 04:
so that even if there was an opportunity, we are arguing here appellant has waived it by not raising it, and doesn't say in their brief, either brief or frankly at oral argument, how they would amend.

[00:13:32] Speaker 04:
When the district court looks at this case and looks at the facts, there are no facts alleged to support the legal requirements.

[00:13:43] Speaker 04:
So in the opening brief at page 11 and 16,

[00:13:49] Speaker 04:
Appellant states that there are five separate occasions where rock loans used a pre-recorded or artificial voice message, and then cites six paragraphs in the complaint.

[00:14:00] Speaker 04:
In the argument paragraphs following that, they only refer to paragraphs 27, 38, 42, and 43.

[00:14:05] Speaker 03:
What would they have to plead that would satisfy Rule 8 here?

[00:14:11] Speaker 04:
Any facts more than they used an artificial voice or a pre-recorded voice?

[00:14:25] Speaker 04:
that should be sufficient, at least for pleading purposes, to show that, yes, that it might have been an artificial or pre-recorded voice.

[00:14:33] Speaker 04:
We have none of that.

[00:14:34] Speaker 03:
I feel like there's a rule of reason here.

[00:14:37] Speaker 03:
And maybe it's because I've gotten, maybe my phone number has gotten on some bad list, but I get a ton of these calls.

[00:14:44] Speaker 03:
I know within two seconds whether it's artificial or a live person.

[00:14:50] Speaker 03:
And so I guess I'm having a real hard time understanding why we're getting all caught up on this.

[00:14:55] Speaker 03:
It seems a highly technical matter that it's like I can go outside and say this guy is blue.

[00:15:01] Speaker 03:
Like I don't need to allege you know there were no clouds in the sky.

[00:15:04] Speaker 03:
I mean it's like you didn't know any common person seems to know whether it was an automated call or not.

[00:15:10] Speaker 04:
No.

[00:15:11] Speaker 04:
and I will well my first comment is you're not on one list you're on a million lists yeah okay so the second comment is no that's not how it works at phone banks so at phone banks you have the cues again not in the pleadings I'll grant you that you have the cues of callers

[00:15:29] Speaker 04:
who finish a call, enter their notes, and push a button, and the next call queues up, and they're ready to make the call.

[00:15:35] Speaker 04:
The button is pushed and the phone dials.

[00:15:37] Speaker 04:
And they don't say anything until the other side answers the phone and says, hello.

[00:15:43] Speaker 04:
So that pause is to be expected.

[00:15:45] Speaker 03:
But I'm saying within two seconds of talking to that person, or hearing the voice, I shouldn't say person, but of hearing the voice, I know whether it's automated or not.

[00:15:56] Speaker 05:
yes but that's not alleged well but but it is i'm sorry paragraph 43 hang on artificial or pre-recorded voice no facts so that's my notes let me get paragraph 43 paragraph well furthermore and so this is i mean i was asking your friend about the the use of and slash or this is a paragraph that does not use and or

[00:16:16] Speaker 05:
Furthermore, some of the defendants' calls to plaintiff after receiving the letter contained an artificial or pre-recorded voice as prohibited by the sexist statute.

[00:16:27] Speaker 05:
Isn't that exactly the sort of factual allegation that Judge Nelson was talking about?

[00:16:34] Speaker 04:
No.

[00:16:35] Speaker 04:
For example, in a negligence case,

[00:16:37] Speaker 04:
When the allegation is they acted negligently, you're looking for facts that show the negligent acting.

[00:16:43] Speaker 04:
They were speeding, et cetera.

[00:16:45] Speaker 03:
I just view that totally differently.

[00:16:46] Speaker 03:
I mean, you're saying that this is equivalent of saying, hey, they committed negligence.

[00:16:52] Speaker 04:
I'm saying that we need facts under Iqbal and Twombly to show that the elements of the statute have been met.

[00:17:00] Speaker 04:
The elements of the statute include a call with an artificial or pre-recorded voice.

[00:17:05] Speaker 05:
But I guess, I mean, this is I think the same question Judge Nelson was asking.

[00:17:09] Speaker 05:
That seems like it is a fact.

[00:17:11] Speaker 05:
Like, you answer the phone, and you can listen to the voice that you're hearing, and you draw a conclusion.

[00:17:19] Speaker 05:
This is a live person.

[00:17:20] Speaker 05:
This is not a live person.

[00:17:22] Speaker 05:
Like, that's a fact that you can perceive, isn't it?

[00:17:25] Speaker 05:
That's a fact you would then allege, but they didn't even allege... That's what this alleges.

[00:17:30] Speaker 05:
They answered the call.

[00:17:31] Speaker 05:
The person contained an artificial or pre-recorded voice, right?

[00:17:34] Speaker 04:
Okay, that is what those words say.

[00:17:37] Speaker 04:
So I'm suggesting those words are not sufficient.

[00:17:39] Speaker 04:
If you think they're sufficient, make your time.

[00:17:42] Speaker 05:
What words would be sufficient if those aren't sufficient?

[00:17:46] Speaker 04:
You have the statutory standard.

[00:17:48] Speaker 04:
Any words to show facts that you met the statutory standard.

[00:17:53] Speaker 05:
Give me an example of words that would show those facts.

[00:17:56] Speaker 04:
Sure.

[00:17:57] Speaker 04:
I answered the phone and heard an electronic noise.

[00:18:00] Speaker 04:
I answered the phone.

[00:18:01] Speaker 04:
There was a pause and then a voice said the same voice that I heard in 13 previous calls saying the same words.

[00:18:11] Speaker 04:
Because you could be having, as they said in paragraphs 27, 38, 42, agents, representatives, agents or representatives would have a slight variation in their script.

[00:18:23] Speaker 04:
Not everyone speaks with a perfect Pasadena accent from having spent 12 years in the Pasadena school system.

[00:18:31] Speaker 04:
They all have slight different variations in intonation and inflection.

[00:18:35] Speaker 04:
None of that comes through in the complaint.

[00:18:37] Speaker 04:
None of that comes through in the opening brief or reply brief.

[00:18:41] Speaker 04:
All it is is you used an artificial or pre-recorded voice.

[00:18:46] Speaker 04:
Okay, what are the facts?

[00:18:48] Speaker 04:
Just allege anything.

[00:18:53] Speaker 04:
That's what we're saying on that topic.

[00:18:57] Speaker 04:
The only other point to make aside, in our view, no facts being alleged is the leave to amend issue.

[00:19:06] Speaker 04:
Not raised or sought.

[00:19:08] Speaker 03:
Your argument, as I understand it now, is that's more of an appellate.

[00:19:12] Speaker 03:
It's actually been forfeited on appeal because they didn't raise it in their opening brief.

[00:19:16] Speaker 03:
Correct.

[00:19:18] Speaker 03:
Okay.

[00:19:19] Speaker 02:
Yeah, we'll take a look at that.

[00:19:22] Speaker 04:
And while the last paragraph of the opposition to the motion says what you said, again, no support for it at either the non-oral argument in the opposition to the motion or even in the opening brief where they said, hey, the court didn't give us leave to amend, here is what we would say.

[00:19:42] Speaker 04:
Not everything, but here are some of the things we would say or could say.

[00:19:46] Speaker 04:
Relying on agents or representatives through discovery to later prove this may not be sufficient if I have no idea.

[00:19:52] Speaker 04:
Because remember, I, the appellant, I, the plaintiff, heard these calls.

[00:19:57] Speaker 04:
If I didn't hear the calls, there's no claim.

[00:19:59] Speaker 04:
But I heard these calls, and here is what I heard.

[00:20:04] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:20:05] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:20:05] Speaker 03:
Thank you for your argument.

[00:20:07] Speaker 03:
We'll give a minute for rebuttal.

[00:20:12] Speaker 04:
I'm gonna hobble away.

[00:20:18] Speaker 01:
Your Honor, as I stated, as to just the leave to amend, it was requested in the opposition to the motion to dismiss.

[00:20:26] Speaker 01:
Furthermore, the court actually denied the motion to dismiss under the pleading standards saying that we failed to plead facts sufficient under FRCP rule eight.

[00:20:37] Speaker 01:
That was not, there was no cross appeal.

[00:20:39] Speaker 01:
If it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander.

[00:20:42] Speaker 01:
If they're going to argue now that we failed to hit rule FRCP rule 8, they should have appealed that order by the court, which stated we did plead this with proper particularity.

[00:20:52] Speaker 01:
And I will reiterate, there's been not one statement as to how possibly any amendment would be futile, that a futility of amendment is required for denial of leave to amend.

[00:21:02] Speaker 01:
We stated over and over, the heir in this court was the granting under 12b6 with prejudice.

[00:21:09] Speaker 01:
And that implicit, that that is an heir, is that it should have been either denied or granted without prejudice with leave to amend.

[00:21:19] Speaker 01:
This is de novo review.

[00:21:22] Speaker 01:
We're looking at this anew.

[00:21:23] Speaker 01:
If this was reviewed anew, would this court uphold that order?

[00:21:27] Speaker 01:
I don't think so after analyzing it.

[00:21:28] Speaker 01:
Judge Schroeder may have a question.

[00:21:29] Speaker 00:
I had a question.

[00:21:31] Speaker 00:
Are you suggesting that the district court, in your opening brief, I had the feeling that you were actually suggesting that the district court aired as a matter of law because it was really holding, if you don't

[00:21:45] Speaker 00:
if you don't meet the requirements for the automatic call, that you're out.

[00:21:53] Speaker 01:
If you read it, it was a sua sponte argument brought up.

[00:21:56] Speaker 01:
There was no oral argument.

[00:21:58] Speaker 01:
I believe there would have been a different result if there was oral argument as we would have pointed out that the disjunctive portion of the statute and state, well,

[00:22:05] Speaker 01:
You may be correct as to, yes, post-Facebook versus Dequeeb, this is probably not a randomly generated number because they were their customer, but there's two other alternative means by which to still have a claim under 2747.

[00:22:17] Speaker 00:
So that could have been the reason that the district court

[00:22:21] Speaker 00:
Did it with prejudice?

[00:22:23] Speaker 01:
It was.

[00:22:24] Speaker 01:
I believe exactly that was the reason.

[00:22:25] Speaker 01:
It just did not.

[00:22:26] Speaker 01:
There's no analysis in the order itself.

[00:22:28] Speaker 01:
The pre-recorded voice or artificial voice is never once mentioned or analyzed, and there was no oral argument to try to possibly correct just an oversight of not seeing that there's an alternative theory under the statute.

[00:22:41] Speaker 03:
OK.

[00:22:41] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:22:42] Speaker 03:
Thank you to both counsel for your arguments.

[00:22:43] Speaker 03:
The case is now submitted, and that concludes our arguments for the week.

[00:22:58] Speaker 00:
This court for this session stands adjourned.