William Miller v. Crisis Collection Management, LLC, 22-16819

Plaintiff William R. Miller sued debt collector Crisis Collection Management, LLC (CCM), alleging FDCPA violations for attempting to collect a default judgment entered in 1997 and allegedly renewed in 2003, 2009, 2015, and 2021 that Miller claims were not properly renewed under Nevada law.
The district court dismissed Miller’s putative class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), concluding the renewals were valid.
Nevada law makes judgments valid for six years and requires a creditor to file an affidavit of renewal within 90 days before expiration; successive renewals may be filed within 90 days before the preceding renewal expires.
CCM repeatedly filed renewals in 2009, 2015, and 2021; Miller contended those renewals were invalid and thus collection efforts violated the FDCPA.
The Ninth Circuit reviewed the 12(b)(6) dismissal de novo and addressed two central legal questions about (1) whether each renewal restarts the limitations period for the next renewal, and (2) whether mailing notice of renewal to the debtor before filing the affidavit satisfies Nevada’s renewal requirements.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part (on the timing window for successive renewals), reversed in part (on the required sequence of filing then service), and remanded for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether each successful renewal restarts the six‑year limitations period so a successive renewal can be filed within 90 days before the preceding renewal expires	Miller: Renewals were not properly measured from each prior renewal and thus later renewals were invalid	CCM: Each renewal is the last transaction for purposes of limitations; successive renewals may be filed within 90 days before the preceding renewal expires	Held: Successive renewals restart the limitations period; CCM’s renewals in 2009, 2015, and 2021 fell within the proper 90‑day windows under §17.214 when measured from the prior renewal filing dates
Whether mailing the affidavit of renewal to the debtor before filing it with the clerk satisfies Nevada’s filing/recording/service requirements for a valid renewal	Miller: Mailing before filing is insufficient; filing must occur before service/notice	CCM: The statute’s requirement to mail within 3 days after filing does not mandate filing before mailing; sequence is not dispositive	Held: Filing is a required first step and must occur before service; CCM mailed the 2009 affidavit before filing it, so the 2009 renewal was invalid (and later renewals based on it were therefore invalid)

Kwan v. SanMedica Int’l, 854 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir. 2017) (de novo review standard for 12(b)(6) dismissal)
Wetzel v. Lou Ehlers Cadillac Grp. Long Term Disability Ins. Program, 222 F.3d 643 (9th Cir. 2000) (state law interpretation reviewed de novo)
Davidson v. Davidson, 382 P.3d 880 (Nev. 2016) (limitations period begins at last transaction or last overdue payment)
Leven v. Frey, 168 P.3d 712 (Nev. 2007) (judgment renewal requires timely filing, recording, and service; filing is a first step)
BMO Harris Bank, N.A. v. Whittemore, 535 P.3d 241 (Nev. 2023) (reaffirming Leven’s requirements for renewal)
O’Lane v. Spinney, 874 P.2d 754 (Nev. 1994) (interpreting “within 90 days before” language for renewal timing)