Michael Cutts v. RICHLAND HOLDINGS, INC., DBA Acctcorp of Southern Nevada

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL CUTTS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
RICHLAND HOLDINGS, INC., DBA
Acctcorp of Southern Nevada; CLIFFORD
MOLIN, DBA Zeeba Sleep Center,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 18-15377
D.C. No.
2:17-cv-01525-JCM-PAL
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
James C. Mahan, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted June 14, 2019
San Francisco, California
Before: GOULD and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and PEARSON,** District Judge.
Michael Cutts appeals the district court’s order dismissing his claims against
Richland Holdings, Inc., and Clifford Molin for violations of the Fair Debt
FILED
JUL 22 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The Honorable Benita Y. Pearson, United States District Judge for the
Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 3 --

Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), abuse of process, misrepresentation, and civil
conspiracy. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm in part
and reverse in part.
Cutts’s misrepresentation and civil conspiracy claims arise out of factual
allegations relating to the value and nature of Cutts’s debt, and such allegations are
logically related to the facts underlying Richland’s previous state court action
against Cutts for recovery of the debt. See Mendenhall v. Tassinari, 403 P.3d 364,
371 (Nev. 2017). Accordingly, these claims were compulsory counterclaims in the
previous state court action under Rule 13 of the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure,
see id., and are barred by claim preclusion, see Exec. Mgmt., Ltd. v. Ticor Title Ins.
Co., 963 P.2d 465, 478 (Nev. 1998) (per curiam).
Because Cutts alleges that the prior debt-collection action was an abuse of
process, Cutts’s abuse of process claim was not a compulsory counterclaim under
Rule 13 of the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure. See id. The district court
therefore erred in dismissing Cutts’s abuse of process claim as barred by claim
preclusion. See id.1
1 Cutts’s claims were not barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because
Cutts neither alleges the state court decision was erroneous nor seeks relief from
that decision. See Bell v. City of Boise, 709 F.3d 890, 897 (9th Cir. 2013).
2

-- 2 of 3 --

The mandate shall issue in accordance with Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of
Appellate Procedure only as to Cutts’s misrepresentation, civil conspiracy, and
abuse of process claims.2 In a concurrently filed order, see Cutts v. Richland
Holdings, Inc., __ F.3d __ (9th Cir. 2019), we certify the question whether Cutts’s
FDCPA claims were compulsory counterclaims in Richland’s previous state court
action against Cutts and stay proceedings on those claims pending the Nevada
Supreme Court’s answer to the certified question.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART.
2 The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.
3

-- 3 of 3 --