N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT

R ONALD SAR

UKHANOV, a

n individual, Pla i ntiff-Appe lla nt,
v. J.P. M OR G AN C HASE B A NK, N.A., De fe nda n t-Appe l le e . No. 14-56961 D.C . No. 2:13-c v-02223-DSF-FFM
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Da le S. Fisc he r, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Nove m

be r 8, 2016 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : O’ SC A

N NLAIN, FER

NANDEZ, a

nd R A W LINSON, C irc u it Judge s. Appe lla nt R ona ld Sa

rukha nov (Sa rukha nov) c h a l le nge s the distric t c o urt’ s gran t of pa

rtia l sum m ary judgm e nt in fa

vor of Appe lle e JPM orga n C ha se B ank, NA (C ha se ). Sarukha

nov a l le ge d tha

t he wa s a vic tim of ide ntity

the ft a nd sought 

# F IL ED
MAY19 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).c om

pe nsation from

C ha se pursua

nt to C a lifornia ’ s Ide ntity The ft Ac t . Sarukha

nov
c onte nds tha

t the distric t c ourt e rrone ously c o nc lude d tha

t he c ould not pursue

his ide n tity the ft c la im be c a

use C ha se wa s not a

c la im ant a s re quire d

unde r the Ide n tity The ft Ac t. Whe n inte rpre ting sta

tutory te xt, “ [t] he C a lifornia

Supre m e C ourt first looks to the la n gua ge of the sta

tute , giving e ffe c t to thewords’ pla in m e aning; if the la ngua ge is una

m biguous, the

pla in m e aning c ontrols.” Gonzale s v . C arMax Auto Supe rstore

s, LLC , 840 F.3d 644, 650 (9th C ir. 2016) (c ita tion, a lte ration, a

n d inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d). Pursua nt to C a l. C iv. C ode § 1798.93(a): (a ) A pe rson m ay

bring a n a c tion a ga inst a c laimant to e sta blish tha t the pe rson is a

vic tim of ide ntity

the ft in c onne c tion with the c laimant’s c laim against that pe rson . If the c laimant ha s brought a n a c tion to re c ove r on its c l aim a ga inst thepe rson, the pe rson m ay file a c ross-c om

pla int to e sta

b lish tha t the pe rson is a

vic tim of ide n tity the ft in c onne c t ion with the c laimant’s c laim
. (e m pha se s a dde d ). C a l. C iv. C ode § 1798.92(a) de fine s a “ c la im ant” a s “ a

pe rson who ha s or purports to ha

ve a c la im

for m one y

or a n inte re s t in prope rty

in c onne c tion with a transa c tion proc ure d through identity the ft.” The pla in sta

tutory te rm s of C a l. C iv. C ode § 1798.93(a) provide tha t an ide ntity

the ft vic tim

m ay pursue an a c t ion only
a ga inst a pa

rty tha t ha s m a de a

“ c la im a g a inst tha

t pe rson.” It is undispute d tha t

2C ha se ha s ne v e r a sse rte d a c la im a ga inst Sa

rukha nov re late d to the m issing funds. Se e Sate y v . J PMorgan C

hase& C o. , 521 F.3d 1087, 1092 (9th C ir. 2008) (obse rving tha

t “ [t] he te rm

‘ c l a im ant,’ a s de fine d in C a l ifornia C ivil C ode se c tion 1798.92(a ), re fle c ts a

pre se n t te nse inte re s t in a de bt or a tte m pt to c olle c t” ). Sum m ary judgm e nt in fa

vor of C ha se wa s wa

rrante d be c a

use C ha s e is not a
c la im ant unde r the pla in a nd una m biguous te rm s of the Ide ntity The ft Ac t . 1 AFFIRM E D.

1 B e c a use we re solve this a

p pe a l ba se d

on the pla in m e a

n ing of thesta

tute , we ne e d not c onside r C ha se ’ s a lte rnative argum e nts pre m ise d on le gisla tive history and the C a lifornia

C om m e rc ia l C ode . W e a lso de ny C ha se ’ s R e que st For Judic ia l Notic e In Support Of De fe nda nt-Appe lle e ’ s Answe ring B rie f.

3