john williams on behalf of all it's like a five minutes of my time rebuttal and i'll keep my eye on the clock thank you i believe that many of the issues in this appeal are well received but i'd like to take this opportunity to put a finer point on a few key issues this morning and i'm going to start with the a cool of the labor code section nine hundred and seventy nine dollars while there is a dispute in this case whether  a threshold issue the timing of when seen and should have discovered martinez's fraud presented a highly controverted question of that issue was further complicated by representation is that martinez anyone was doing something unlawful which is required to start the running of the statute in the nation's as the court notes from our brief thing one of our chief one of the chief errors we believe the district court made was that it conflated a violation of company policy with the requisite notice of unlawful conduct needed to start the limitations that you are not the same thing for example while it may have been a violation of company policy to poach protecting the accounts such conduct was not actionable especially when martinez made team the discretion to address it instead it was only when the sales accounts were protected birds benefit to those other sales persons were violating the company's policies and three that martinez would enforce that company policy consistent with the  inquired to his immediate supervisor are within elevated the issue to martina's who again repeated that he would look into it implicitly acknowledging that it was an issue which garnered inquiry rather than simply disputing that those accounts were never protected as he would only later assert certainly martinez could have done that sooner but he didn't do that in that situation a jury can find the  statue limitations issue if if it steps your actual development of the cruel of a claim but it seems to me that there is a spectrum of  and so it would seem to me that the court if if it finds that the one year statute of limitations applies it's still still going to be an issue and daniel martinez and in the interest of time i will focus my our human on the two primary things that district court judge and mello made and that summary judgment rolling when it did determine that  one year statute of limitations flies under california code of civil procedure section three hundred and forty dollars a and then secondly the cruel issue and that the district court h that the claim of crude was in the st several months of employment was respondent and that was when he had actual knowledge that the terms of his employment were not as he had believed or represented to him and there was an and seventy claims that you're liable to the party aggrieved in a civil action for double damages resulting from from such misrepresentation now it is well established california law that when you have that double d m ijaz you have the right to actual damages plus mandatory additional damages that equals a penalty and we cited several cases in our brief as do the district court judge that that is a very well established vs three stops your statue of limitations in that court decision however the court does this for reference that the eastern just strict how old that appellant's labor code decelerator provision that was the st alleged misrepresentation that is in the complaint and kind of friend are our case and secondly was whether these there was these protected account and whether they you know that there was a misrepresentation that he that mr aquino would have these protected accounts that had belonged to a former sales person the dream callahan now when you look at those are the two buckets of alleged misrepresentations are things that mr king is a misrepresentation then you look at mr keenan actual admissions and you know there's there's a lot of creative arguments about the timeline but mr keenan on in his deposition he laid out you know he had to have several missions so with regard to when he found out about the fact that these terms and conditions were going to be  misrepresentation argument but so i like to ask you you know drawing on what mr williams has just been arguing and what they set forth in their briefs assuming of the circumstances in late two thousand what mr keene and alleged was that this was the big reason why he even was induced to come and take this job was these protective accounts and in november th team he knew that that other people were selling his accounts and he raised the issue and at that point he knew there at that time or even you know maybe a few months there after into the beginning of two thousand and sixteen that those accounts were not protected ther people were selling on those accounts and so at that point he knew or had you know reasonable belief to understand that mr martinez allegedly made a misrepresentation as to those protected account but he didn't know the and if there's possible inference to say well it was sort of administrative or our management issue regarding the accounts does that really attach at that time i mean and especially if we have to there's a suspicion to investigate and not to sit back and sort of wait for tomorrow years and you know when there was a very knowing suspicion at a minimum that there was a misrepresentation on the on that the half you know the terms and conditions about these protected accounts that at that point the  the onus was on mr keenan to look into it further to do something he clearly had a concern about it that he and let me answer and cerner and i'm just trying to i think of the ill you on be choir trying to equate the concern versus oh that's when the duty you know inquiry really set out and he that's when the clock started but it seems like he kept inquiry to find out and they kept telling him you know well we're going to look into that you know and it's written in the rules of engagement that he would have protected candidates if i recall correctly and so he's that he's he's finding out the it's he doesn't know if it's a management sort of issue or what's going on and it's really not very clear to him until mr martinez sits down with him i guess some time in two thousand and seventeen i think it was march when he said you know we never i basically we never protected them and we can you know we've given them to the to the folks that ultimate decision maker so there is a issue that that that representation in writing was different or so mr aquino alleges then what was told to where you're saying the onus of my claim is that i was with there was misrepresentation that lured me to move and take a new job when that's with the owners of the claim is not even a general's fraud claim that could sort of develop over time when it's i came to to is this employer based on these represent taste representations which then i find out within the st few months are not what they were told to me and that is at that time when the claim accrues and the case why didn't this case more like still lives like drawl and with was going back to what i think is is that actual binding authority here with funky spirity in the th circuit and for the court to take a look at jolly  and i believe that with regard to it goes back to the policy that the employee has some obligation to look into the underlying  and fair dealing is overridden by the expressed as well agreement that set forth in the offer letter and all of the various contracts where mr pm was an express our well employee and the terms and conditions of his employment were also up to the discretion of his employer which is very common and in california and from my understanding that but that's not the proper standard on summary judgment the competing in france that it should have drawn is that when he and finds out about those most accounts and he asks park who by the way as an independent into it and that's perfectly reasonable to the extent that martinez is the ultimate arbiter of who gets what accounts under the rules of engagement and it's consistent with martino says prior representation was ever terminated for not making quota before martinez ever told him that these accounts would be rectified or did he want credit those accounts back to keenan so he could make as quota i care of when he asked for a reconciliation when he st started getting performance reviews after that initial period where his commissions were tied to he kept asking martinez what about these accounts what about these accounts and martinez kept telling them look into it of course martinez have that ability to do so and he didn't and it was only when martinez told him in march of two thousand and seventeen of those accounts one protected employer in the contract he had to exercise it in good faith consistent with what consistent with the representations that he previously made to kean and about the protected accounts which again are robin rated as well so i just want to