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

W ILLIAM R

. M ILLER ,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,

v.
C R ISIS C OLLEC T ION M ANAGEM ENT, LLC ; e t a l.,

De fe nda

n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 22-16819
D.C . No. 2:22-c v-00262-JC M -B NW

M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Sta t e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da Ja m e s C . M a ha

n, Distric t Judge , 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

n d OW ENS, C irc uit Judge s, a nd FITZW ATER , * * Distric t Judge

. Pla intiff-Appe lla

nt W i l l i a m R

. M ille r (“ M ille r” ) a ppe a ls t he distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt gra nting the Fe de ra l R ule of C ivil Proc e dure 12(b)(6) m o tion of



# FIL ED

N OV 20 2023

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

* This disposition is not ap p r o pr iate 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.

* * The Honora

ble Sidne y A. Fitz wa t e r, Unite d Sta t e s Distric t J udge for the Northe rn Distric t of Te xa s, sitting by de signa tion.De fe nda

nts-Appe lle e s C risis C olle c tion M a na ge m e nt, LLC , C hristophe r Eric M um m ,

a nd R o be rt H. B roili (c olle c tive ly , “ C C M ” ) to dism i ss his puta t ive c l a ss a ction

a sse rting c la im s unde r the Fa ir De b t C olle c tion Pra c t ic e s Ac t (“ FDCP A ”). 1 M ille r

a lle ge d t ha t C C M , a s a de bt c olle c tor, v iola te d the FDC PA by a t te m

pting t o co l le c t

a de bt— a de fa

u lt judgm e n t e nte re d a ga i nst M i ll er i n 1997 a nd a lle ge dly re ne we d in 2003, 2009, 2015, a nd 2021— de spite the fa c t tha t the judgm e nt ha d not b e e n prope rly

re ne we d in a c c orda

nc e with the stric t re q

uire m e nts of Ne v. R e v. Sta t. §§ 17.150 a n d
17.214. The dis t r i ct co u rt he ld tha t M ille r’ s c o m pla int fa ile d a s a m a tte r of l a w
be c a use the re ne wa ls of the judgm e nt we re va lid.

“ W e re vie w d

e n o v o the distric t c o urt’ s j udgm e nt gra nting a 1 2(b)(6) m otion
for fa ilure to s t ate a c la im u pon whic h re lie f c a n be gra nte d.” K w an v

. SanMe dic a
Int’l , 854 F.3d 1088, 1 093 (9th C ir. 2 017) (c ita tion om itte d). “ W e re vie w the distric t

c ourt’ s inte rpre t a tion of sta t e la w, i nc luding sta

te st at u te s, de nov o .” W

e tze l v

. Lou
Ehle rs C adillac Grp. Long Te rm Disability Ins. Program , 222 F.3d 643, 6 46 (9th C ir. 2000) (e n ba

nc ) (c ita t ion om itte d). W e ha ve jurisdic tion unde r 2 8 U .S.C

. § 1291, a n d

we a ffirm in pa rt a nd re ve rse a nd re m a nd in pa rt.
1. The d i stric t c ourt c orre c tly he ld tha t C C M co m p l i ed w ith Ne v. R e v. Sta t. § 17.214 whe n it re pe a te dly re n e we d the judgm e nt a ga inst M ille r within the 90-da y

1 M ille r a lso a sse rts a

re la te d c la im

for de c l a ra t ory

re lie f.

2pe riod be fore the e xpira tion of the prior re n e wa l. In Ne v a da , a judgm e nt is va lid for
six y e a rs be fore i t m

us t b e re ne we d. Ne v. R e v
. Sta t. § 11.190(1)(a ). To re ne w a n
unpa id judgm e nt, the c re d itor m ust file with the c le rk of c ourt a n a ffida vit of re ne w a l

“ with in 9 0 da

y s be fore the da te the judgm e n t e xpire s b y lim ita tion.” Id. § 17.214(1)(a ). “ Suc c e s sive a ffida vits for re ne wa l m a y be file d within 9 0 da y s be fore
the pre c e ding re ne wa l of t he judgm e nt e xpire s by lim ita tion.” I d. § 17.214(4). The
lim ita tions pe riod be gins o n the da te of “ t he la st tra nsa c tion o r the l ast ite m c ha rge d

or la st c re dit give n,” o r a t the tim e the la s t ove rdue pa y m e nt is m a de , a nd e xpire s six

y e a rs la te r. Id. §§ 1 1.190(1)(a ), 11.200, 17.150(2); se e also Dav i dson v

. Dav idson , 382 P.3d 880, 885 (Ne v
. 2016). He re , the “ la s t tra nsa c t ion” be twe e n M ille r a nd C C M

a t the tim e of e a c h re le va

nt re ne wa l wa s the im

m e dia te pre c e ding re ne wa l. Thus the
lim ita tions pe riod for e a c h re ne w a l be ga n t o run o n the re n e wa l filing da te , a nd the 90-
da y window for filing a suc c e ssive re ne wa l ope ne d 90 da y s be fore t he sixth

a nnive rsa ry of t h a t filing da t e

— not 90 da y s be fore the a nnive rsa ry of the origina l judgm e nt. Ac c o rdingly , the distric t c ourt c orre c tly he ld tha t C C M ’ s judgm e nt

re ne wa ls in 2009 , 20 1 5 , a nd 2021 we re not void for fa ilure t o c om p ly with t

his

re quire m e nt of § 17.214.
2. B ut the distric t c ou r t er r ed in holding tha t a judgm e nt re ne wa l is e ffe c tive
if t he a ffida vit of re n e wa l on whic h it is ba se d is m a ile d to the de btor bef o r e the

3a ffida vi t i s f i le d with the c le rk of c ourt. Unde r Ne va da la w , a judgm e nt is only

suc c e ssfully re ne we d upon “ the tim e ly filing o f a n a ffida vit, tim e ly re c ording of the

a ffida v it (if the judgm e nt to be re ne we d wa s re c o rde d), a nd tim e l y s er v i c e of the

a ffida v it.” Le ven v. Fr ey , 1 68 P.3d 712, 713-14 (Ne v. 2007); se e also BMO Harris
Bank , N .A. v

. W hitte more , 535 P.3d 241, 2 4 4 (Ne v. 2023) (re a ffirm ing Le v e n ).
C ontra ry to C C M ’ s c onte ntion a nd t he distric t c ourt’ s holding, the se thre e

r eq uire m e nts c a nnot be sa tisfie d i n just a n y se que nc e
. Le v e n sta

te s t ha t the filing

re quire m e nt is “ a c le a

r first ste p in the p roc e dure for re ne wing judgm e nts,” i ndic a ting
tha t filing m

ust oc c ur be fore se rvic e
. Le v e n , 1 6 8 P

. 3 d at 715. T h is re a ding of § 17.214(3), whic h s ta te s t ha t notic e of re ne wa l m

ust be m a ile d “ wi th in 3 da y s afte r filing the a ffida vit,” Ne v. R e v. Sta t. § 17.214(3) (e m pha sis a dde d), a voids re nde ring

a ny la ngua ge supe rfluous a nd a lso a c c ords with Ne va da c ourts’ inte rpre t a tion of
sim ila r la nguag e in § 1 7.214(1)(a ), se e , e .g. , O’Lane v

. Spinne

y , 874 P.2d 754, 755
& n.2 (Ne v. 1 994) (holding tha t “ within 90 da y s be fore t

he da te the j udgm e nt e xpire s by lim ita tion” m e a ns b et w een t h e nine t ie th d a y be fore t he e xpira tion da te a nd the

e xpira tion da te ). It is undispute d tha t, for the 2009 re ne wa l, C C M m a ile d the a ffida vit
of re ne wa l t o M ille r on M a rc h 1 1, 2009, be fore C C M file d the a ffida v it with the c le rk
of c ourt on M a r ch 1 6 , 2 009. The re fore , the a tte m pt to re ne w t

he judgm e nt wa s
inva lid. And t

he judgm e n t wa s still inva lid (ha ving not be e n pr o p er l y re ne we d in

42009) w he n C C M a tte m p ted t o r ene w it in 2015 a nd 2021. The distric t c o urt e rre d
whe n it dism

isse d M ille r’ s c om

pla int on the ba sis tha

t his c l a im s we re a ll pre dic a te d

on the e rrone ous a sse rtion tha t C C M ’ s re ne w a l s w er e i nva lid. To the c ontra ry , the 2009, 2015, a

nd 2021 re ne wa ls w e re inva lid.
W e the re fore a ffirm the judgm e nt in pa rt, re ve rse the judgm e nt in pa rt, a n d

re m and this c a se for furthe r proc e e dings c o nsiste nt with this m e m o ra ndum disposition. Ea

c h pa rty sha ll be a r his or its own ta xa ble c osts of c ourt.
AFFIRM E D IN PART , RE V E RSE D AND RE M ANDE D IN PART
.

5