[PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

MAY 02 2000

THOMAS K. KAHN

No. 98-8405 CLERK

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 97-03012-1-CV-TWT OHUNENE O. LAWAL GLINTON, et al,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus AND R, INC., a Georgia Corporation, et al,

Defendants-Appellees.

________________________

No. 98-8406

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 1:97-3013-CV-TWT MICHAEL DARBY, and those persons similarly situated with Mr. Darby,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus COBB CENTER PAWN AND JEWELRY BROKERS, INC., a Georgia corporation, N.Y. DIAMOND CORPORATION, etc. et al,

Defendants-Appellees.

________________________

No. 98-8872

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 1:97-CV-3015-TWT SUSAN WALKER, and all persons similarly situated with Walker,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus MIKE HORTON; CASH EXPRESS, INC., et al,

Defendants-Appellees

_________________________

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

_________________________

(May 2, 2000) Before HULL and MARCUS, Circuit Judges, and RONEY, Senior Circuit Judge. PER CURIAM:

Plaintiffs who had borrowed money from Georgia pawnbrokers at interest rates of 20 or 25 percent per month brought suit against the pawnbrokers alleging the transactions were illegal and void because they violated Georgia’s criminal usury

2 statute, O.C.G.A. § 7-4-18. The pawnbrokers moved to dismiss the complaints on the ground that the transactions complied with Georgia’s pawnbroker statute, O.C.G.A. § 44-12-130 et seq., and such transactions are not controlled by the criminal usury statute.

The district court decided that the two statutes conflict and cannot be harmonized and that the pawnbroker statute governs the subject transactions rather than the criminal usury statute. The Court granted defendants’ motions and dismissed the cases.

The cases were consolidated on appeal to this Court. Having substantial doubt about the proper resolution of the state law issue presented by this case, we certified the following questions to the Georgia Supreme Court:

CAN THE STATUTORY SCHEME REGULATING

PAWNBROKERS, § 44-12-130-138 BE READ HARMONIOUSLY

WITH THE CRIMINAL USURY STATUTE, O.C.G.A. § 7-14-18, SO

THAT BOTH APPLY TO “PAWN TRANSACTIONS” AS DEFINED

IN O.C.G.A. § 44-12-130(3), OR ARE SUCH TRANSACTIONS

MEANT TO BE GOVERNED EXCLUSIVELY BY O.C.G.A. § 44-12-

130-138.

IS THE PERMISSIBLE RATE OF INTEREST AND FEES CHARGED

IN “PAWN TRANSACTIONS” AS DEFINED IN O.C.G.A. § 44-12-

130(3) GOVERNED SOLELY BY O.C.G.A. § 44-12-131, OR DOES

THE CRIMINAL USURY STATUTE, O.C.G.A. § 7-14-18, APPLY TO

MODIFY ALLOWABLE CHARGES SO THAT THE INTEREST

3

CHARGED IN THESE TRANSACTIONS VIOLATES GEORGIA

LAW. Glinton v. And R Inc., 173 F.3d 1352 (11th Cir. 1999).

In a thorough opinion, the Georgia Supreme Court answered the certified questions by concluding that these statutes cannot be reconciled and that the criminal usury statute is inapplicable to pawn transactions. See Glinton v. And R, Inc., 524 S.E.2d 481 (Ga. 1999)(Benham, C.J., dissenting).

In light of that opinion the district court's order dismissing plaintiffs' complaints was correct.

AFFIRMED

4