for Marais, .would riot likely have suggested consideration of this argument if it thought our prior precedent clearly settled the issue against Marais. Since our prior precedent, reviewed above, would, if followed, settle the issue against Marais, the Court takes the Circuit’s statement as a directive to reconsider the analysis employed in previous district decisions before the Circuit does it for us. See also Mellentine v. Ameriquest Mortg. Co., 515 Fed.Appx. 419, 424-25 (6th Cir.2013) (showing the softening stance on qualifying damages by holding that a plaintiff who alleged amorphous “damages in an amount not yet ascertained, to be proven at trial” could satisfy the actual damages element); Houston v. U.S. Bank Home Mortg. Wis. Servicing, 505 Fed.Appx. 543, 548 n. 6 (6th Cir.2012) (<HOLDING>). This Court still recognizes that there is
holding that actual damages under respa included emotional damages holding that even emotional damages could constitute actual damages for purposes of  2605f1a holding that a plaintiff can seek statutory damages even in the absence of actual damages holding that respas actual damages provision allows for the recovery of emotional distress holding that under privacy act federal government waived its sovereign immunity with respect to actual damages but not with respect to damages for mental or emotional distress