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

In re : DAVID EDW

AR D M YER S; M AR Y ANN M YER S, De btors,

______________________________ LVNV FUNDING, LLC ,

Appe lla nt,

v. DAVID EDW AR D M YER S; M AR Y ANN M YER S,

Appe lle e s. No. 22-16615
D.C . No. 2:21-bk-11376-NM C

M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d Sta te s B a nkruptc y C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da N a ta l ie M . C ox, B a nkruptc y Judge , Pre siding
In re : DAVID EDW

AR D M YER S; M AR Y ANN M YER S,
De btors,

------------------------------ LVNV FUNDING, LLC No. 22-60037
B AP No. 22-1005 

# FIL ED

N OV 21 2023
M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F A PPEALS

* This disposition is n o t ap p r o p r ia te for public a tion 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.Appe lla nt,

v. DAVID EDW AR D M YER S; M AR Y ANN M YER S,

Appe lle e s.
Appe a l from the Ninth C irc uit B a nkruptc y

Appe lla te Pa ne l La ffe rty III, B ra nd, a

nd Ta y lor, B a nkruptc y

Judge s , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm i tte d

Oc tobe r 3, 2023 La s Ve ga s , Ne v a d a B e fore : R

AW LINSON a nd O W ENS, C i rc u it Judge s, a nd FITZW ATER , * * Distric t Judge

. Appe lla

nt LVNV Funding, LLC (“ L VNV” ) file d a proof of c l a im in the C ha pte r 13 ba nkruptc y p roc e e ding of Appe lle e s Da vid a nd M a ry M y e rs (“ the De btors” ) using Offic i a l Form 4 10, whic h the ba nkruptc y c o urt a llowe d ove r the De btors’ obje c tion. The B a nkruptc y Appe lla

te Pa ne l (“ B AP” ) v a c a te d a nd re m a n de d the a llowa

nc e orde r. On re m a nd, ba s e d o n the pa rtie s’ stipula

tion a nd the B AP’ s de c ision, the b a n kruptc y

co u r t d i s a llowe d LVNV’ s c la im

. LVNV now a ppe a ls both the B AP’ s de c ision a nd the ban kruptc y c ourt’ s o rde r disa llowing the c la i m
. W e ha ve jurisdic tion unde r 2 8

* * The Honora

ble Sidne y A. Fitz wa te r, Unite d Sta te s D istric t Judge for the Northe rn Distric t of Te xa s, sitting by de signa tion.
2U.S.C

. § 158(d)(1) ove r the a ppe a l from t h e B AP’ s de c ision, a nd unde r 28 U.S.C

. § 158(d)(2)(A) ove r the a

ppe a l from the ba

nkruptc y c ourt’ s disa llowa n c e orde r. 1 W e R EVER SE the B AP’ s de c i sio n an d the ba nkruptc y c ourt’ s disa llowa nc e orde r a

n d
R EM A ND. 2
1. The B AP he ld (a

nd the De btors c onc e de d) tha t LVNV’ s proof of c la im

c om plie d with Fe d. R

. B a n kr. P. 3001 a nd wa s the re fore e ntitle d to prim a fa c ie

va lidity

. B ut the B AP c onc lude d tha t LVNV’ s c la im m ust b e d isa llowe d unde r 1 1
U.S.C

. § 502(b)( 1 ) b ecau se the doc um e nta t ion L VNV provide d wa s insuffic ie n t to

e nfo r ce the d e bt unde r Ne va d a la w, in tha t the proof of c l a im did not c om ply with
Ne va da proc e dura l re quire m e nts se t out in Ne v. R e v. Sta t. §§ 97A.160 a nd 97A.165 (c olle c tive ly , t

he “ Ne va da la

ws” ). The B AP e rre d in th i s h olding, be c a use the princ iple s of Erie R .R. C o. v
. Tompk

ins , 3 04 U.S. 64 (1938), dic ta te tha t fe de ra l
p r o ce dura l la

w— R ule 3001, in pa

rtic ula r— gove rns the re quire m e nts for a proof o f

1 A m otions pa

n e l of this c ourt gra nte d a pe tition for per m i s s i o n t o a p pe a l the ba nkruptc y c ourt de c i sion unde r 28 U.S.C

. § 158(d).

2 W e re vie w d e c isions of the B AP de novo. In re C

e llular 101, Inc

. , 539 F.3d 1150, 1154 (9th C ir. 2008). A n d w e r e vie w que s tions of sta t utory inte rpre ta tion, inc l uding i nte rpre ta tion of the B a nkruptc y C ode a nd sta te la w , d e n ovo. Se e In re PG& E C o rp. , 4 6 F.4th 1047, 1052 (9th C ir. 2 022); C one st o g a S er v s. C orp. v
. Ex e c
. Risk Inde m., Inc

. , 312 F.3d 976, 981 (9th C ir. 2002).
3c la im

. 3

Unde r Erie princ iple s, fe de ra l ba nkruptc y c o urts a pply fe de ra l proc e d

ura l la w

a nd s ta te substa

ntive la w . Se e Trav e le rs C

as. & Sur. C

o. of Am. v
. Pac

. Gas & Ele c
. C o. , 549 U.S. 443, 450 (2007). To de te rm i ne whe the r a sta te la w a p plie s in a fe de ra l

a c tion, “ we de c i de whe t

he r the sta

te l a w c o nflic ts with a va lid [fe de ral p roc e dura l rule ] .” Martin v
. P ie rc e C n t y. , 3 4 F

. 4 t h 1125, 1128 (9th C ir. 2022). A fe de ra l proced u ra l rule i s va lid i f i t “ is a ‘ ge ne ra l rule [] of pra c tic e a nd p roc e dure ’ tha t doe s

‘ n ot a bridge , en l arge or m odify a n y substa ntive right’ a

n d is ‘ proc e d

ura l in the ordina ry use of the te rm .’ ” Id. a t 1128-29 (c ita tion om itte d ).
2. He re , R

ule 3001 c le a rly c ontrols ove r the Ne va da l a ws. The N e va da la ws

c onflic t w ith t hi s f

ed era l rule be c a

use t he two g ive diffe re nt a nswe rs to the sa m e
que stion: W h a t m

ust a c re d i tor provide in support of a proof of c la im on a n ope n-e n d

c re d it c a rd a c c ount? Se e R ule 3001(c )(3); Ne v. R e v. Sta t. § 97A.160. Furthe rm ore , R ule 3 001 is a va lid proc e d u ra l rule

. The re is a s trong pre sum ption tha t fe de ra l rule s

3 The De btors a sse rt tha t L VNV wa ive d i ts Erie a rgum e nt. W e disa gre e
. “ Onc e a fe de ra l c la im is prope rly pre se nte d, a pa rty c a n m a ke a ny a rgum e n t in support of tha t c la im ; pa rtie s a re not lim ite d to the pre c i se a rgum e nts the y m a d e be low.” Ye e v
. C ity of Esc o ndido , 5 0 3 U .S. 519, 534 (1992). Furthe rm ore , a n a ppe lla te c ourt is fre e to

“ c o nside r a n issue a nte c e d e nt t o a nd ultim a te ly dispositive of the dispute b ef o r e it, e ve n a n issue the pa

rtie s fa i l to ide ntify a nd brie f.” U.S. N at’l B a nk of Or. v
. Inde

p. Ins. Age nts of

Am., Inc

. , 508 U.S. 439, 447 (1993). On both grounds, we c a n c onside r the E rie issue

. 4of proc e dure ha v e be e n prope rly prom ulga te d unde r t

he a pplic a ble e n a bling sta tute

a nd do n ot im

pinge on substa

ntive rig h t s. See H

a nna v
. Plume r , 380 U .S. 460, 471 ( 1 9 65). A nd R

u le 3001, i n p a rtic ula

r, is a ty pic a l proc e d

ura l rule : it doe s no m ore tha n se t o ut t

he proc edura l re quire m e nts for a proof of c la im , se e R ule 3001(a )-(e ),

a nd spe c ify whe n a prope rly e xe c ute d p roof o f c la im c o nstitute s prim a fa c ie e vide nc e of its va lid i t y and a m ount, s e e R ule 3001(f)-(g). C onse que n tly , R ule 3001 pre va ils

ove r the Ne va da la

ws, m e a ning tha t the Ne va d a la ws a re not “ a

pplic a ble la w” tha t c a n

re nde r a c la im “ u n e nforc e a ble ” unde r 11 U .S.C

. § 502(b)(1). Thus LVNV’ s fa ilure
to c om ply with Ne v. R e v. Sta t. §§ 97A.160 a nd 97A.165 is n o t a g r o u n d for disa llowing its proof of c l a im

. 3. Unde r t

h e g o v e r n i n g r u l e

— R u l e 3 0 0 1

—

L VNV ha s provide d the re quisite doc um e nta tion f

o r i ts proof of c la im

. T h e B AP a n d t he ba nkruptc y c ourt the re fore

e rre d by disa llowing the c la im ba se d on L VNV’ s fa ilure to c om ply with the Ne va da la ws. RE V E RSE D and RE M ANDE D.

5