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

DINAR IO, Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt, v. LVNV FUNDING, LLC and THE B R AC HFELD LAW

GR O UP, PC , a C a l ifornia C orporation, De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 16-55417 D.C . No. 3:13-c v-02804-LAB -NLS M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Larry A. B urns, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d De c e m

be r 5, 2017 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : D.W . NELSON a nd REINHAR

DT, C irc uit Judge s, a

nd STEEH, *** Distric t Judge . 

# FIL ED DEC 07 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion 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 pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).

* * * The Honora

ble Ge orge C aram

Ste e h III, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Ea ste rn Distric t of M ic higa n, sitting by

de signa tion.R osa

nto Ordina

rio (“ Ordina

rio” ) a ppe a l s the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of his m otion for sum

m a ry judgm e nt a

nd gra nting of LVNV Funding, LLC ’ s (“ LVNV” ) m otion for sum

m a ry judgm e nt. W e re vie w de novo a distric t c ourt’ s rulings on c ross-m o tions for sum

m ary judgm e nt. Donohue v . Quic k C olle c t , Inc . , 592 F.3d 1027, 1030 (9th C ir. 2010). W e re vie w de novo “ q ue s tions of la

w , inc luding the distric t c o urt’ s inte rpre tations of theFa ir De bt C olle c tion Pra c t ic e s Ac t (“ FDC PA” ) and the R ose ntha l Ac t.” Riggs v . Probe r & Raphae l , 681 F.3d 1097, 1101 (9th C ir. 2012) (c ita

tions a nd quota tions omitte d). “ W e m ay a ffirm on a ny ba sis supporte d by the re c ord.” Afe w e rk

i v . Anay a Law

Grp. , 868 F.3d 771, 778 (9th C ir. 2017). W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e AFFIRMon the a lte rnat ive ground tha

t LVNV’ s sta

te c ourt a c t ion wa s not tim e -barre d. Ordina rio’ s e ntire FDC PA and R ose ntha l Ac t a c tion is ba s e d on the c la im that LVNV file d a

tim e -barre d sta

te c ourt a c tion to c olle c t

unpa i d c re dit c ard de bt. In the sta te c ourt a c tion, LVNV a sse rte d C a lifornia c om m on c ount of inde

bte dne ss on a n ope n book ba se d on a

n a c c ount sta

te d, rathe r tha

n bre a c h of c ontra c t

of the unde rly ing c ardholde r a gre e m e nt. An a c c ount sta te d ha s thre e e le m e nts: “ (1) pre v ious tra

nsa c tions be twe e n the pa

rtie s e sta blishing the

re lationship of de

btor and c re ditor; (2) a

n a g re e m e nt be twe e n

the pa rtie s, e xpre ss or im

p lie d, on the am ount due from

the de btor to the c re ditor; [a nd] (3) a prom ise by

the de btor, 2e xpre s s or im plie d, to pa

y the am ount due . ” Zinn v . Fre d R. Bright C o. , 271 C a l. App. 2d 597, 600 (1969). An a c c ount sta te d m a y be im plie d from

the c irc um s ta nc e s . Maggio, Inc . v . N

e al , 196 C a l. App. 3d 745, 753 (1987) (“The a gre e m e nt ne c e ssa

ry to e sta blish a n a c c o unt sta

te d ne e d not be e xpre ss a

nd is fre que ntly

im plie d from

the c irc um sta

nc e s. W he n a sta te m e nt is re nde re d to a de btor a nd no re ply is m a de in a

re a sona ble tim e , the la

w im plie s a n a gre e m e nt tha

t the a c c ount is c o rre c t a s re nde re d.” ). In O’Bry nev . Portfolio Re c ov e ry , the distric t c ourt he ld tha t an a c c o unt sta te d e xiste d unde r sim ila

r fa c ts. C a se No. 12c v447 2013, W L 1223590, a

t *5 (S.D. C a l. M ar. 26, 2013). In tha t c a se , the re wa s a

de b tor a nd c re ditor re lationship give n tha t C a pita l One ha d be e n

se nding m o nthly

sta te m e n ts to O’ B ryne , a

nd O’ B ryne m a de pa

ym e nts on the m . Id. C a

p i ta l One the n

se nt a fina l billing sta te m e nt to O’ B ryn e . Id. The c ourt found tha t O’ B ryn e ’ s fa ilure to dispute the sta te m e nt c onstitute d a

n a dm ission of the

ba la n c e due . Id. Furthe r, the c o urt sta te d that “ [a ] lthough Plaintiff now c la im s he ne ve r a g re e d to e nte r into a n a c c ount sta te d, a pa rty ’ s inte nt a

t the tim e of c ontra c ting c o ntrols the form ation of a c ontra c t.” Id. at *6. W e lat e r a ffirm e d the distric t c ourt’ s holding tha

t a n a c c ount sta te d e xiste d. O’Bry nev . Portfolio Re c ov e ry Assoc iate

s, LLC , 596 F.App’ x 565,

3566 (9th C i r. 2015) (holding tha t a n unc onte ste d

fina l c re dit c a

rd sta te m e n t e sta blishe d a n a c c o unt sta

t e d). He re , the re wa s a lso a

de btor a nd c re ditor re lat ionship be t we e n Ordina

rio and C ha se give n tha

t the re we re pre vious tra

nsa c tions be t

we e n C ha s e and Ordina rio in theform

of m onthly

sta te m e nts a nd subse que nt pa

ym e nts. Ordina rio’ s fina l pa

ym e nt wa s on June18, 2009. In Ja nua ry 2010, Ordina

rio re c e ive d a

fina l sta te m e nt. On Ja

nua ry 30, 2010, C ha se c l ose d Ordina rio’ s a c c ount. Nothing in the

re c ord shows tha

t Ordina rio e ve r dispute d the va lidity of the d e bt or the am ount owe d. Thus, like in O’Bry ne , a

n a c c ount sta

te d e xiste d.

“ Unde r C a lifornia

la w, a four-y e ar statute of lim ita tions a pplie s to a c tions for bre a c h of c ontra c t, a c c ount sta te d, a nd ope n book a c c ount.” Prof’l C olle c tion C onsultants v. Lauron , 8 C a l. App. 5th 958, 966 (Ct. App. 2017), re h ’g de nie d (M a r. 13, 2017), re v i e w

de nie d (Apr. 26, 2017); C a l . C iv. P. C o de § 337. Ordina rio c onc e de d a s m

uc h in his pa

rtia l sum m ary judgm e nt m otion. Furthe r,

“ [a ] c t ions to re c ove r on a n a c c o unt sta

te d or a book a c c ount a c c rue on the date of the l a st ite m

or e ntry in the a c c o unt.” Prof’l C o lle c tion C

onsultants , C a l. App. 5th at 966; C a l. C iv. P. C o de § 337(2) (“ Whe re an a c c ount sta t e d is ba s e d upon a

n a c c ount of m o re tha

n one ite m , the tim e sha ll be gin to run from the date of the la st ite m .” ); R.N

.C . Inc . v . Tse

ge le tos , 231 C a l.App.3d 967, 971-972 (1991) (“ t he 4four-y e ar pe riod of limita tions on a book a c c ount be g ins a s of the la s t e ntry in the book a c c o unt.” ). Ordina rio re lie s on R.N

.C . Inc . v . Tse

ge le tos to support his c onte ntion tha t the l a st ite m

or tra n sa c tion m

ust be prior to thedate the c re ditor c e a se s to e xte nd c re d it. C ontra

ry to Ordina

rio’ s position, a

nd a s the c ourt in Zav a la v . Anne x Financ ial, Inc . an a ly z e d , the c o urt in R.N . C . found “ that the de btor a

nd c re dit re lationship ende d whe n the c re ditor ‘ de m a nde d pa ym e n t of the full a

m ount the n owe d,’ or, in the a lte rnative , whe n the c re ditor ‘ thre ate ne d to turn the de bt ove r to a c olle c tion a ge nc y .’ ” No. 2:12-C V-6988-SVW -M R W , 2013 W L 12113213, a t *7 (C .D. C a l. Ja

n . 15, 2013) (quoting R.N .C . , 231 C a l.App.3d a

t 973). Thus, the

m ore like ly date of la st e ntry

wa s whe n C ha s e “ a sse sse d va rious c ha rge s to thea c c ount be fore c losing it.” Id. at *6. B a se d on the fore going, thela st e ntry on Ordina rio’ s a c c ount wa s whe n C ha se c ha

rge d a late fe e on Ja

nua ry 13, 2010 be fore c losing the a c c ount on Ja nua ry 30, 2010. 1 LVNV file d the sta te c ourt a c tion on De c e m

b e r 5, 2012, we l l within thefour y e a

r lim it. B e c a

use LVNV’ s sta

te c o urt a c t ion wa s not tim e -barre d, the re wa s no viola

tion of theFDC PA or R ose ntha l Ac t.

1 Eve n if the c l oc k sta

rte d on the date of Ordina rio’ s la st pa

ym e nt on June 18, 2009, the

sta te c ourt a c tion would ha

v e still be e n tim e ly . 5AFFIRM E D.

6