Hope Fields v. Retailers Credit Association

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HOPE FIELDS,
Appellant,
v.
RETAILERS CREDIT ASSOCIATION,
Appellee.
No. 10-17096
D.C. No. 2:09-cv-02930-FCD
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Frank C. Damrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 19, 2011**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
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 estoppel. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §158(d). We review
FILED
JAN 10 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-17096 2
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. Nourbakhsh (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., 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.

-- 2 of 2 --