Case Name: Hope FIELDS, Appellant, v. RETAILERS CREDIT ASSOCIATION, Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-01-10
Citations: 465 F. App'x 710
Docket Number: No. 10-17096
Parties: Hope FIELDS, Appellant, v. RETAILERS CREDIT ASSOCIATION, Appellee.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Bankruptcy Reporter
Volume: 471
Pages: 710–711

Head Matter:
Hope FIELDS, Appellant, v. RETAILERS CREDIT ASSOCIATION, Appellee.
No. 10-17096.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 19, 2011.
Filed Jan. 10, 2012.
Hope Fields, Davis, CA, pro se.
Mark Ewell Ellis, Andrew M. Stein-heimer, Ellis Law Group LLP, Sacramento, CA, for Appellee.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Hope Fields appeals pro se from the district court's order affirming the bankruptcy court's judgment concluding that her adversary proceeding brought against Retailers Credit Association ("RCA") was barred by the doctrine of collateral estop-pel. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review decisions of the bankruptcy court independently without deference to the district court's determinations. Leichty v. Neary (In re Strand), 375 F.3d 854, 857 (9th Cir.2004). We affirm.
The bankruptcy court properly concluded that collateral estoppel precludes Fields from relitigating a debt dispute with RCA because the issue was .already decided against her in a prior default judgment. See Gayden v. Nowrbakhsh (In re Nourbakhsh), 67 F.3d 798, 800 (9th Cir.1995) (per curiam) (preclusive effect of a state court judgment rests upon the preclusion law of the state in which the judgment was issued); Four Star Elec., Inc. v. F & H Constr., 7 Cal.App.4th 1375, 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 1, 3 (Ct.App.1992) (California law provides that collateral estoppel may be applied based on a prior default judgment).
We decline to address issues raised for the first time on appeal, including Fields's contentions that, in the prior action, she was improperly served and that RCA committed extrinsic fraud. See Fla. Partners Corp. v. Southeast Co. (In re Southeast Co.), 868 F.2d 335, 339-40 (9th Cir.1989) (declining to address issue not raised before bankruptcy court).
Fields's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.