FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
NOV 20 2023
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WILLIAM R. MILLER, No. 22-16819
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No.
2:22-cv-00262-JCM-BNW
v.
CRISIS COLLECTION MANAGEMENT, MEMORANDUM*
LLC; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
James C. Mahan, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted October 3, 2023
Las Vegas, Nevada
Before: RAWLINSON and OWENS, Circuit Judges, and FITZWATER,** District
Judge.
Plaintiff-Appellant William R. Miller (“Miller”) appeals the district court’s
judgment granting the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motion of
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The Honorable Sidney A. Fitzwater, United States District Judge for the
Northern District of Texas, sitting by designation.
Defendants-Appellees Crisis Collection Management, LLC, Christopher Eric Mumm,
and Robert H. Broili (collectively, “CCM”) to dismiss his putative class action
asserting claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”).1 Miller
alleged that CCM, as a debt collector, violated the FDCPA by attempting to collect
a debt—a default judgment entered against Miller in 1997 and allegedly renewed in
2003, 2009, 2015, and 2021—despite the fact that the judgment had not been properly
renewed in accordance with the strict requirements of Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 17.150 and
17.214. The district court held that Miller’s complaint failed as a matter of law
because the renewals of the judgment were valid.
“We review de novo the district court’s judgment granting a 12(b)(6) motion
for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Kwan v. SanMedica
Int’l, 854 F.3d 1088, 1093 (9th Cir. 2017) (citation omitted). “We review the district
court’s interpretation of state law, including state statutes, de novo.” Wetzel v. Lou
Ehlers Cadillac Grp. Long Term Disability Ins. Program, 222 F.3d 643, 646 (9th Cir.
2000) (en banc) (citation omitted). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and
we affirm in part and reverse and remand in part.
1. The district court correctly held that CCM complied with Nev. Rev. Stat.
§ 17.214 when it repeatedly renewed the judgment against Miller within the 90-day
1
Miller also asserts a related claim for declaratory relief.
2
period before the expiration of the prior renewal. In Nevada, a judgment is valid for
six years before it must be renewed. Nev. Rev. Stat. § 11.190(1)(a). To renew an
unpaid judgment, the creditor must file with the clerk of court an affidavit of renewal
“within 90 days before the date the judgment expires by limitation.” Id.
§ 17.214(1)(a). “Successive affidavits for renewal may be filed within 90 days before
the preceding renewal of the judgment expires by limitation.” Id. § 17.214(4). The
limitations period begins on the date of “the last transaction or the last item charged
or last credit given,” or at the time the last overdue payment is made, and expires six
years later. Id. §§ 11.190(1)(a), 11.200, 17.150(2); see also Davidson v. Davidson,
382 P.3d 880, 885 (Nev. 2016). Here, the “last transaction” between Miller and CCM
at the time of each relevant renewal was the immediate preceding renewal. Thus the
limitations period for each renewal began to run on the renewal filing date, and the 90-
day window for filing a successive renewal opened 90 days before the sixth
anniversary of that filing date—not 90 days before the anniversary of the original
judgment. Accordingly, the district court correctly held that CCM’s judgment
renewals in 2009, 2015, and 2021 were not void for failure to comply with this
requirement of § 17.214.
2. But the district court erred in holding that a judgment renewal is effective
if the affidavit of renewal on which it is based is mailed to the debtor before the
3
affidavit is filed with the clerk of court. Under Nevada law, a judgment is only
successfully renewed upon “the timely filing of an affidavit, timely recording of the
affidavit (if the judgment to be renewed was recorded), and timely service of the
affidavit.” Leven v. Frey, 168 P.3d 712, 713-14 (Nev. 2007); see also BMO Harris
Bank, N.A. v. Whittemore, 535 P.3d 241, 244 (Nev. 2023) (reaffirming Leven).
Contrary to CCM’s contention and the district court’s holding, these three
requirements cannot be satisfied in just any sequence. Leven states that the filing
requirement is “a clear first step in the procedure for renewing judgments,” indicating
that filing must occur before service. Leven, 168 P.3d at 715. This reading of
§ 17.214(3), which states that notice of renewal must be mailed “within 3 days after
filing the affidavit,” Nev. Rev. Stat. § 17.214(3) (emphasis added), avoids rendering
any language superfluous and also accords with Nevada courts’ interpretation of
similar language in § 17.214(1)(a), see, e.g., O’Lane v. Spinney, 874 P.2d 754, 755
& n.2 (Nev. 1994) (holding that “within 90 days before the date the judgment expires
by limitation” means between the ninetieth day before the expiration date and the
expiration date). It is undisputed that, for the 2009 renewal, CCM mailed the affidavit
of renewal to Miller on March 11, 2009, before CCM filed the affidavit with the clerk
of court on March 16, 2009. Therefore, the attempt to renew the judgment was
invalid. And the judgment was still invalid (having not been properly renewed in
4
2009) when CCM attempted to renew it in 2015 and 2021. The district court erred
when it dismissed Miller’s complaint on the basis that his claims were all predicated
on the erroneous assertion that CCM’s renewals were invalid. To the contrary, the
2009, 2015, and 2021 renewals were invalid.
We therefore affirm the judgment in part, reverse the judgment in part, and
remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this memorandum
disposition. Each party shall bear his or its own taxable costs of court.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART.
5