2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12416, at *45, 2011 WL 579339 at *8 (D.Minn. Feb. 8, 2011) (“the letters were not QWRs because [plaintiffs did not identify purported errors in their account or ask questions related to Chase’s servicing of their loan,” and because “[pjlaintiffs’ letters had no relation to Chase’s receipt or application of their payments”). Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ March 2010 notice did not qualify as a valid QWR and thus BAC’s failure to respond thereto does not subject BAC to RESPA liability. Furthermore, even assuming the notice was a valid QWR and that BAC failed to acknowledge receipt of Plaintiffs’ QWR or failed to respond timely and adequately to Plaintiffs’ questions therein, Plaintiffs nevertheless do not state a claim under 12 U.S.C. § 2605(e) , 836 (11th Cir.2010) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ RE SPA claim brought
holding that prejudice or injury is a necessary element of standing holding an allegation of damages is a necessary element of any claim under  2605 recognizing that allegation of state action is a necessary element of a  1983 claim holding that showing damages caused by the failure to provide notice of transfer is a necessary element of a respa claim holding that an antitrust injury is a necessary element of a  2 claim