Imperial Merchant v. Hunt ( 2009 )

FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
IMPERIAL MERCHANT SERVICES, INC., 
a California corporation doing
business as Check Recovery No. 07-15976
Systems,
Plaintiff-Appellant,  D.C. No.
CV-06-07795-MJJ
v. OPINION
BRADY G. HUNT,
Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Martin J. Jenkins, District Judge, Presiding
Argued April 17, 2008
Resubmitted for Decision September 1, 2009
San Francisco, California
Filed September 1, 2009
Before: Stephen S. Trott and Sidney R. Thomas,
Circuit Judges, and Michael R. Hogan,* District Judge.
Per Curiam Opinion
*The Honorable Michael R. Hogan, United States District Judge for the
District of Oregon, sitting by designation.
12197
12198 IMPERIAL MERCHANT SERVICES v. HUNT
COUNSEL
For Imperial Merchant Services, Inc., plaintiff-appellant:
Clark Garen, Esq., Attorney, Law Offices of Clark Garen,
Palm Springs, California.
For Brady G. Hunt, defendant-appellee: Paul S. Arons, Esq.,
Attorney, Law Offices of Paul S. Arons, Friday Harbor,
Washington; Irving L. Berg, Esq., Attorney, The Berg Law
Group, Corte Madera, California; O. Randolph Bragg, Esq.,
Attorney, Horowitz Horowitz & Associates, Ltd, Chicago,
Illinois.
IMPERIAL MERCHANT SERVICES v. HUNT 12199
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Imperial Merchant attempted to recover both a service
charge, pursuant to section 1719 of the California Civil Code,
and pre-judgment interest, pursuant to section 3287 of the
California Civil Code, on a returned check. The district and
bankruptcy courts concluded that the remedies were exclusive
and that Imperial Merchant could not recover damages under
both statutes.
We certified that state law issue to the Supreme Court of
California, stayed all proceedings pending receipt of the
answer to the certified question, and withdrew the appeal
from submission. Imperial Merch. Servs. v. Hunt, 528 F.3d
1129 (9th Cir. 2008). The question posed on certification was
as follows: “May a debt collector recovering on a dishonored
check impose both a service charge under section 1719 of the
California Civil Code and prejudgment interest under section
3287 of the California Civil Code?” Id. at 1130.
[1] The Supreme Court of California graciously accepted
our certification request. The Supreme Court concluded that
“the statutory damages prescribed in section 1719 are exclu-
sive in the sense that a debt collector who recovers a service
charge pursuant to section 1719 may not also recover prejudg-
ment interest under section 3287.” Imperial Merch. Servs. v.
Hunt, No. S163577, 2009 Cal. LEXIS 8030, at *2 (Cal. Aug.
10, 2009).
We resubmitted the appeal for decision. The reasoning of
the California Supreme Court is self-explanatory and disposi-
tive. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.