morning your honour's may please the court melissa camacho chung for a moment david kastor i'd like to reserve about three minutes for a bottle the district court dismissed david castors claim under thirty three for twenty a holding that materiality is required for a penalty in doing so the court usurped the will of the arizona legislature by requiring materiality where the statute itself does not the plain language punishes knowingly recording a property document that is forged groundless contains a material misstatement or false claim or is otherwise invalid now not only is the statute written in the just jumped of but the last phrase otherwise invalid following the plain language of the statute i found in my sense of materiality now the court erred by inferring this materiality where the legislature could have chosen to put it into any portion of the statute they have chosen to  make liability dependent on whether or not appointed could prevail on a property claim but chose not to instead the statute assigns punitive damages and the arizona supreme court and why it noted that the punitive damages served to punish evil minded conduct it's not primarily designed to reimburse or compensate for any actual injury so through the statute the arizona legislature has determined that a penalty of at least five thousand dollars per document is necessary to punish and deter this type of conduct of counsel how do you square the district court's reliance on the eurozone a cases such as certain and style for which appeared to go the same way in terms of suggesting if there was a materiality requirement that applied to the statute how do you distinguish those cases from the situation a couple of different ways in both of those cases the plaintiffs raise their claim under the material misstatement prong there's only one arizona state case that has one arizona court of appeals case that has dealt with the otherwise invalid prong and that's the master versus taco bell also the he by the passage of the one year you don't have an injury there's no harm no foul as to the subsequent purchaser for value but what the arizona legislature saying is that at that moment of recording that is a bad act it is a bat to record invalid property document and that's no longer that's probably fine you have lots of bad eggs are lots of bad acts out there but if you're not injured you don't have standing you don't have any injury to claim and lots of bad stuff happens for say well you know i'm going to a year of this that something will go wrong but the year passes and by law the effect of that bad act is vitiated you don't suffer any injury how can you bring a lawsuit because you know that the plaintiff is not injured so a couple of things so the district court itself actually noted that if he had brought this claim in this one year window the beneficiary would have cancelled the sale and re noticed it the notice sale would been completed so as to mr castor in that first in that ninety days it was very significant to him that this invalid document was accorded the clock started running on this ninety days when it should not have because there was no notary in the room to acknowledge these documents and that's the type of problem i'm not i'm not sure i'm no but i'm showing the injury that occurs when a document is recorded no matter if as to a subsequent purchase or for a value that's fixed in the year that that act banks are on the hook for four years under the statute of limitations for that that the fact that subsequent purchased for purchases for value are protected af for that year it doesn't but what's the injury the injury is that invalid property document was recorded so it starts in muddying the title without non judicial foreclosure process and the arizona legislature has decided that that's ok but an acknowledgment is required in that case to bring some sort of third party some sort of oversight into the process there's a list of offices authorized to take these acknowledgments a judge a clerk or a quarter of the notary public and so you see and as to as to subsequent purchases value i'm not sure what that means if if the document is valid and so the time serves as somewhat of a private attorney general as the has the ability to write and if you bring a lawsuit within that time when the document is not valid then you've got a lawsuit but you what you c minutes i'll ask you one question and then he should save you time the arizona legislature decided that it was around four act that affected your current and subjected your client to risk that it's not a panel we take we take the question at face value though that there is this issue as to if the one year period already cured at that and after that one year period was a plaintiff such as the plaintiff here have that there is only one named plaintiff so far so there is the risk that that there would be that harm and that there would be the cloud of title so that is there is a risk that is there but i would like to say aside from the standing point the i think it would have to depend on the rest because this is a hotly contested issue in light of spokeo so depending on what the risk was is that a risk that existed in traditional common law if such that and the supreme court has said and spoke you know that you look you the nature of the rest if it's one that's existed in common law if it is a relatively new one that the legislature has pronounced that and i think it it might be different and well certainly the clouding of title is a risk that was recognized that common law was not  and so if a risk list created by virtue of someone filing an invalid document and that was made illegal by the years on a legislature and that had a four year statute of limitations would not we count four years from the time when that riskless created you would i think for justifying the rest but i think there's also the us that's kind of the only point that that risk is wiped away after the one year which does complicate the injury occurred was the injury not the creation of the risk and did the arizona's legislature not passed a statute to prohibit the creation of that risk and allow people to sue for four years they did your honor it so i would like unless the panel has additional questions on stand it up just like to point out that there are four independent bases which this court can affirm the district court in this diversity case the first one is the materiality point thankfully there's a lot of arizona case law  affirming that you do need materiality in this kind of context we're garlics of the problem that's alleged the second point there is no arizona supreme court it just arizona court of appeals cases your honor but as this court has held in kirkland unless there's statement well the qualifier does apply to that prong your honor but that's because all these other problems of the statute have materiality builtin you have forged you have groundless all of those  otherwise invalid those all implied which are realities as judge waite noted there and it's important to focus on the fact that this is a criminal statute a violation of the statute could subject the person to six months in jail under arizona law it would be nonsensical hold there's nothing that would have changed here this suit was filed four years after the foreclosure heard and it was that it's undisputed that the borrower was in default there's nothing that he could have changed based on this error his his opportunities for still the same either either pay and bring the loan current try to renegotiate or force foreclosure face foreclosure and those are the options that existed both the stuffer in the sitting court held that he couldn't have changed anything based on said here and that's not more importantly what's alleged in this case it's never alleged that there was a forgery they're not claiming none of what you are saying that the materiality applies to everything except things that have forgery it's not there's just this one was ten days the next one was two years the one after that the notary never really was a notary and the next one that they didn't ever even try to have a notary there a she signed someone else's name or wasn't the lawful representative it's merely this this timing issue but isn't the statute a peanut of statute that's intended to stop someone from doing the kind of thing that was done here and if it sounds to me like you're saying that the statute really has no no one purpose behind it because that kind of forgeries that you're talking about that would be material a person could undo the  undo the mortgage under those circumstances and stop the foreclosure couldn't they but not all are and i think what's important to point out is it if you look at the stuff or case the other there's side said that wasn't a forgery case forgery was alleged there and what they were claiming is the signature in that case and there was no there was no finding materiality it would be countervailing to everything in arizona case law to find material here but i just want to make another point use that even if their leader did give you remember me can you appreciate that even if they did overcome materiality which they can't they would have to show this document is invalid under arizona law and as we pointed out in our brief the standard for that is it's a very high bar it has to be there has to only be some basis for the document i just want to close with the point that what the police try to do is really under play the problems with this case the problem that the banks made in this case basically cutting corners at the beginning of foreclosures and  no longer notaries as notaries and that's exactly the type of wrong that the arizona statute is seeking to prevent so all we're asking this court to do is to let this suit go forward so that the arizona's legislature is purpose