FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MAY 19 2017
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RONALD SARUKHANOV, an No. 14-56961
individual,
D.C. No.
Plaintiff-Appellant, 2:13-cv-02223-DSF-FFM
v.
MEMORANDUM*
J.P. MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Dale S. Fischer, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 8, 2016**
Pasadena, California
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Appellant Ronald Sarukhanov (Sarukhanov) challenges the district court’s
grant of partial summary judgment in favor of Appellee JPMorgan Chase Bank,
NA (Chase). Sarukhanov alleged that he was a victim of identity theft and sought
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
compensation from Chase pursuant to California’s Identity Theft Act. Sarukhanov
contends that the district court erroneously concluded that he could not pursue his
identity theft claim because Chase was not a claimant as required under the
Identity Theft Act.
When interpreting statutory text, “[t]he California Supreme Court first looks
to the language of the statute, giving effect to the words’ plain meaning; if the
language is unambiguous, the plain meaning controls.” Gonzales v. CarMax Auto
Superstores, LLC, 840 F.3d 644, 650 (9th Cir. 2016) (citation, alteration, and
internal quotation marks omitted). Pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.93(a):
(a) A person may bring an action against a claimant to establish that
the person is a victim of identity theft in connection with the
claimant’s claim against that person. If the claimant has brought an
action to recover on its claim against the person, the person may file a
cross-complaint to establish that the person is a victim of identity theft
in connection with the claimant’s claim.
(emphases added).
Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.92(a) defines a “claimant” as “a person who has or
purports to have a claim for money or an interest in property in connection with a
transaction procured through identity theft.” The plain statutory terms of Cal. Civ.
Code § 1798.93(a) provide that an identity theft victim may pursue an action only
against a party that has made a “claim against that person.” It is undisputed that
2
Chase has never asserted a claim against Sarukhanov related to the missing funds.
See Satey v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., 521 F.3d 1087, 1092 (9th Cir. 2008)
(observing that “[t]he term ‘claimant,’ as defined in California Civil Code section
1798.92(a), reflects a present tense interest in a debt or attempt to collect”).
Summary judgment in favor of Chase was warranted because Chase is not a
claimant under the plain and unambiguous terms of the Identity Theft Act.1
AFFIRMED.
1
Because we resolve this appeal based on the plain meaning of the statute,
we need not consider Chase’s alternative arguments premised on legislative history
and the California Commercial Code. We also deny Chase’s Request For Judicial
Notice In Support Of Defendant-Appellee’s Answering Brief.
3