Jonathan ARNOLD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Leticia VILLARREAL, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 14-3204
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
Argued March 29, 2016, Decided April 6, 2017
384-389
Robert P. Cummins, Attorney, Norman, Hanson & Detroy, Portland, ME, Hall Adams, III, Attorney, Law Offices of Hall Adams LLC, Chicago, IL, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before FLAUM, EASTERBROOK, and SYKES, Circuit Judges.
SYKES, Circuit Judge.
In the fall of 2004, Jonathan Arnold and Leticia Villarreal exchanged marriage vows in California in a ceremony solemnized by a priest and a rabbi. But they failed to file their marriage license with the county recorder within 10 days of the ceremony as required by California law. Shortly before the license expired, the county recorder sent a letter informing them that the license had not yet been filed and reminding them that they needed to file it to complete the legal process. The couple did nothing and the license expired unfiled.
Although they were not legally married, the couple remained together for about three years, had a child, and purchased a condo in California. By the summer of 2007, their relationship had deteriorated, and they separately filed for divorce—she in California, he in Illinois. The divorce proceedings were terminated when they stipulated that they were never married.
Arnold then sued Villarreal in federal court in Chicago on various fraud theories. He claimed that she tricked him into believing the two were legally married to induce him to give her gifts, including the
Second, evеn if we accept that at some point along the way Villarreal lulled Arnold with reassurances that they were legally married, Arnold was not justified in relying on her representations. He knew, because the county recorder had told them in writing, that the marriage license had not been filed аs required by California law. Accordingly, we affirm the district court‘s judgment. We also grant Villarreal‘s motion for sanctions against Arnold for filing a frivolous appeal.
I. Background
Arnold and Villarreal met in 2003. In January 2004 Arnold proposed marriage and Villarreal accepted. On October 1, 2004, the couple аpplied for and received a marriage license from the Los Angeles County recorder‘s office. The license was valid through December 30, 2004. On November 21 they held a wedding ceremony in the picturesque resort town of Dana Point. Father Erwin Castro, one of two clergymen who pаrticipated in the ceremony (the other was a rabbi), signed the couple‘s marriage license but failed to complete and file it. He did not fill in the date and location of the ceremony; he did not obtain a witness‘s signature; and he failed to perform his statutory duty to return the comрleted license to the county recorder within 10 days of the ceremony. See
On December 27 the couple received a letter from the recorder‘s office informing them that their license had not yet been returned for filing and wоuld expire on December 30. The letter urged them to immediately address the matter and reminded them that filing a completed license was essential to protect their “marital and property rights.” The couple took no action in response to the letter.
In mid-2005 as the couрle anticipated the birth of their first child, Villarreal grew uneasy about the validity of their marriage and told Arnold that she thought their failure to file the marriage license meant that they weren‘t legally married. Arnold dismissed her concerns. Nevertheless, in an attempt to appease her, Arnоld agreed to a do-over. In August 2005 they applied for and received another marriage license. Remarkably, they again failed to follow through, and a completed marriage license was never filed.
Villarreal gave birth to their baby on August 21, 2005. About eight months later Arnold signed a powеr of attorney in favor of Villarreal, which she used to obtain financing and purchase a California condominium in both their names. The loan and purchase documents refer to the pair as a married couple. Arnold later transferred his interest in the condo to Villarreal. He claims he gave her the condo—as well as other gifts—only because he believed they were married.
After nearly three years, the couple‘s relationship began to disintegrate and they separated. In the summer of 2007, they filed separate divorce petitions—Arnold in
Apparently unwilling to leave the matter there, Arnold sued Villarreal in federal court in Illinois alleging various fraud claims and seeking compensatory damages totaling about $1 million and another $1 million in punitive damages.2 He accused Villarreal of tricking him into giving her his property by misrepresenting that they were lawfully married. Villarreal moved for summary judgment, initially taking the position that Arnold‘s fraud suit failed because he wasn‘t deceived about аnything: they really were validly married under California law. The district judge stayed the case while Villarreal returned to California state court to try to undo her stipulation. The state court refused to vacate its judgment.
Once the California court had spoken, the district judge lifted the stay, and Villarrеal again moved for summary judgment. This time she argued that Arnold‘s fraud suit failed because he could not have justifiably relied on any misrepresentations she might have made about the legal validity of their marriage. Arnold responded on the merits and also sought time for additional discovery under Rule 56(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Judge John Grady, the district judge initially assigned to the case, granted Villarreal‘s motion and denied Arnold‘s Rule 56(d) request. The judge rejected Arnold‘s argument that he justifiably relied on Villarreal‘s representations as both “preposterous” on its face and utterly belied by the undisputed record evidence. The judge also held that “[n]o amount of discovery would remedy the flaws in Arnold‘s frivolous theory.”
Arnold moved to alter the judgment under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. He argued that the court had failed to consider all of the relevant еvidence in the record. Meanwhile, in anticipation of Judge Grady‘s retirement, the case was administratively transferred to Judge Amy St. Eve. She denied the Rule 59(e) motion, agreeing with Judge Grady that “[t]he undisputed facts amply demonstrate that Arnold‘s claims are frivolous.”
Although his claims had been deemеd frivolous by not one but two district judges, Arnold nevertheless filed this appeal. Villarreal responded on the merits and moved for sanctions against Arnold for filing a frivolous appeal.
II. Discussion
The parties agree that California law applies to Arnold‘s claims, so to the extent that the aрpeal entails a dispute about the law, our task is to predict how the Supreme Court of California would resolve it. See BMD Contractors, Inc. v. Fid. & Deposit Co. of Md., 679 F.3d 643, 648 (7th Cir. 2012).
As relevant here, Arnold invokes three different provisions of California law:
We begin, howevеr, by noting the distinct possibility that Arnold‘s claims are categorically barred as a matter of law. California courts follow the general rule that one may never justifiably rely on a representation of law (as opposed to a representation of fact) because thе law is equally accessible to all. See Cicone v. URS Corp., 183 Cal. App. 3d 194, 227 Cal. Rptr. 887, 891 (1986); 5
The general rule is subject to a “fiduciary relationship” exception, however, and the exception might apply here. 37 AM. JUR. 2D Fraud and Deceit § 103 (2016). Arnold and Villarreal did not have a literal fiduciary rеlationship, but California courts appear to have extended the fiduciary exception to a broader category of “confidential relationships.” Cicone, 227 Cal. Rptr. at 891; Bank of Am. v. Sanchez, 3 Cal. App. 2d 238, 38 P.2d 787, 789 (1934) (stating that the exception “has been extended to every possible case in which a fiduciary relation exists аs a fact[,] ... [including] moral, social, domestic, or merely personal [relationships]“). And there is some indication that Arnold and Villarreal‘s relationship would be considered “confidential” in the sense meant by California law. See Spellens v. Spellens, 305 P.2d 628, 643 (Cal. Ct. App. 1956) (holding that a jury could reasonably find that parties who were engaged to be married occupied “a confidential relationship“), vacated on other grounds, 49 Cal. 2d 210, 317 P.2d 613 (1957); Mathewson v. Naylor, 18 Cal. App. 2d 741, 64 P.2d 979 (1937) (same).
We‘re hesitant to go further down this road. The parties haven‘t briefed this possible legal barrier to Arnold‘s claims, and the California cases on this doctrine are fairly old. Ultimately, we have no need to predict how the California Supreme Court would construe the “confidential relationship” exception on these facts. Arnold‘s fraud claims clearly fail for a different reason.
California law holds that a plaintiff cannot justifiably rely on a misrepresentation when his own conduct is manifestly unreasonable “in the light of his own intelligence and information.” All. Mortg. Co. v. Rothwell, 10 Cal. 4th 1226, 44 Cal. Rptr. 2d 352, 900 P.2d 601, 609 (1995) (en banc) (quotation marks omitted). Whether the plaintiff has acted so unreasonably that recovery should be denied is normally a jury question, but it “may be decided as a matter of law if reаsonable minds can come to only one conclusion based on the facts.” Id. (quotation marks omitted).
It‘s undisputed that Arnold knew the marriage license was never filed with the recorder‘s office as required by state law. He received the recorder‘s letter to that effect and did nothing to rectify the prоblem. Moreover, as the birth of their child approached, Villarreal told Arnold that she was worried that they weren‘t legally married, so they restarted the process by ap-
For the same reason, Judge Grady‘s rejection of Arnold‘s Rule 56(d) mоtion for additional discovery was eminently sound. A district judge may delay consideration of a summary-judgment motion and order additional discovery if the requesting party demonstrates that “it cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition.”
Judge Grady was clearly right to deny Arnold‘s Rule 56(d) motion. As the judge aptly put it, “[n]o amount of discovery would remedy the flaws in Arnold‘s frivolous theory.” The undisputed evidence already in the record established beyond question that any reliance by Arnold was manifestly unreasonable based on what he knew about his own failure to ensure that the marriage license was properly completed and timely filed.
Finally, Villarreal has moved for sanctions under Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, which authorizes us to award “just damages and single or dоuble costs” against an appellant for filing a frivolous appeal. An appeal is frivolous “when the result is obvious or when the appellant‘s argument is wholly without merit.” Harris N.A. v. Hershey, 711 F.3d 794, 802 (7th Cir. 2013) (quotation marks omitted). That describes this appeal.
Rule 38 sanctions are discretionary, not mandatory. Id. But Arnold‘s appeal is precisely the kind for which an award of sanctions is most appropriate. He filed it aftеr two district judges had characterized his suit as frivolous. There is no theory of justifiable reliance that could overcome the undisputed fact that he knew his marriage license was never properly completed and filed as required by California law. Arnold‘s appeal simply rehаshes his allegation that Villarreal assured him that the marriage was legally valid and repeats bromides about the court‘s obligation to draw all inferences in his favor. He appears to think that catching Villarreal in a lie is enough to entitle him to relief. It is not. Arnold has utterly failed to cоnfront what two district judges recognized: that his fraud claims are not merely meritless but are frivolous. We are left with the distinct impression that he prosecuted this appeal simply to harass Villarreal. As Judge Grady drily noted, the courts “are not a proper venue for petty score-settling.”
Aсcordingly, Villarreal may submit, within 28 days, an affidavit and supporting papers specifying the damages she incurred in this frivolous appeal. Arnold‘s response is due within 28 days of Villarreal‘s submission.
AFFIRMED; RULE 38 SANCTIONS ORDERED.