villareal against jonathan arnold on his three fraud claims more specifically question is whether the court erred by granting summary judgment to an israel reale on the grounds that mr arnold could not justifiably have relied on her representations to him regarding the marital status of the couple first second whether mr arnold's fraud claimed required by the three year statute of limitations in california both of which grounds were granted on both of which grounds of district court granted summary judgment without giving mr arnold an opportunity to take discovery in the case which discovery mr on the question twice  about the party's marital status i don't know that you need to do that because as i understand this claim it's a claim about alleged representations about the legal validity of the marriage and that's a question  representation of the law or a representation of law which is categorically not actionable under any fraud or just the theory because no one can justifiably rely on misrepresentations or alleged representations of law that's just black letter tort law i respectfully disagree your honor the question is whether there was a member misrepresentation of domestic law  and also whether there was a fiduciary relationship or confidential relationship with between the parties in both cases a representation of law can be treated as representation of fact which is actionable and fraud that issue is discussed in miller versus y which the parties briefed and which was addressed by the district court the basis for a question of whether a representation of law is actionable is addressed as i said in the miller case which sounds like you're about to criticize the source of this principle as being only amateur that it's it's just black letter law it's in the restatements it's in every state in the country representations that are not actionable because no one can justifiably rely on said about the legal validity of the marriage and on that point we understand and i take your point but the position that we have taken is that there is in fact up california law to determine what the failure to file the marriage license meant for the legal validity of the marriage he could not rely on whatever she said and frankly as a matter of the factual record of this case she told them that it wasn't valid and they were advised both of them by the recorder of deeds or recorder of records in california that my seat had been filed and if they needed to do it forthwith they did receive a notice not a third party claim this is a first party claim you can defraud a third party about the legal status of your marriage by representing it as factual as a matter of fact but this is this is the claim between the parties to the marriage and you know both the putative husband and the putative wife can equally access the california code or call a lawyer confidential relationship because just between the parties and i'd like to go through a little bit about the relationship between the parties they participated in a wedding ceremony they think none of that matters none of that matters since as a matter of law there isn't the kind of special relationship that the law recognizes as allowing actionable fraud claims under these circumstances well on that point i would again your client couldn't put his head in the sand and accept was a legal marriage which as i understand it that's what your claim is you want to disregard the thank me she made about the marriage not being legally valid and rely on how she acted but it was his duty to find out about the legal validity of the marriage and he stuck his head in the sand we don't actually argue that or that anyone should disregard the statement that she made in two thousand and five we do rely very heavily on her answer to the original complaint in this case in which she admitted in ten or fifteen different paragraphs that she had held herself out at all times as his wife and in fact she argued in her answer that her statements to that effect negated any invalidity of marriage and none of that matters under the law there's no justifiable reliance on a representational law your party is equally capable of accessing the relevant   but i would like to address our motion for sanctions  this case was frivolous from the outset judge grady said that in two thousand and ten he gave my head's up mr smith just said to you there's one statement that's incorrect it's it's as careless and as what must have been the underlying effort by mister good she told him we're not married he admits that actually when they got the letter they still had a few days to get it filed right but they just didn't nobody did it this court i am a very careful person and i'm not one to permit important tasks to languish that's this p  d that's this expert in litigation matters but beyond that this very careful person who doesn't permit important tasks to languish after he's told we're not and the and the affidavit includes these words judge grady said this case was frivolous that was enough there's no general basis whatsoever for this appeal neither judge grady nord judge saying he made any sort of error and to save the three one statement is to ignore the letter it's to ignore his sworn statement that he wasn't married in august of two thousand  but here's perhaps the crew to grow before he dreamed up this lawsuit two thousand and nine back in two thousand and seven when he hadn't figured out yet how he was going to pursue his why did you well why did you pursue the second license he was asked during a deposition in two thousand and seven here's his response the question of whether there was a technical  there was a question in my mind in my mind as to whether or not there was technical completion of the marriage that sworn deposition t the man whose remarkably convicted he was asked another question did you ever tell a t v show it on august eighteenth two thousand and five three days before your daughter was born that the party should apply for a second marriage license because you didn't want your child born as a bastard i don't recall one way or another that is remarkable the undisputed facts in this case of stablish arnold to give her a power of attorney and when she borrowed hundreds of thousands of dollars for a mortgage loan and executed a trust trustees deed to purchase real property for hundreds of thousands of dollars  individual duties or beliefs were his villa were l has represented on the record that shortly after the wedding ceremony she knew that the parties were not married under those circumstances it was a fraud for two parties committing fraud on the third party it is our position respectfully that it does and for that reason in particular most of all the reasons that we've discussed we believe that the courtroom reverse in remand and that it should deny the motion for