divorce clinic, filed the necessary documents in order to begin the process of Wesley’s divorce from Earlean, and continued to cohabit for a period of time, Wesley did not follow through and conclude the divorce process and Vergie and Wesley took no further steps to validate their mar riage. Moreover, once Vergie and Wesley separated, Vergie had no further contact with Wesley, and it appears that Wesley reconciled with Earlean, and died cohabiting with her. As a consequence, Vergie’s putative spouse status was not resurrected. Vergie also cannot attain widow status through a common-law marriage. Although California recognizes common-law marriages created in states which recognize them, California does not recognize common-law marriages created in California. See Tatum, 241 F.2d at 407 (<HOLDING>). Therefore, because Vergie and Wesley were
recognizing that under california state law only ceremonial marriages can be contracted holding that the ninth circuit is bound by the california supreme courts interpretation of california law holding that a similar motion to strike under california state law applies in federal court recognizing a hypothetical situation where california law left a party free to sue on a claim in maryland even after the claim was precluded in california because the california statute of limitations had expired holding that state may not treat interracial marriages differently from other marriages