Preston Collection Inc. v. Steven Youtsey

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PRESTON COLLECTION INC.,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
STEVEN YOUTSEY,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-17073
D.C. No. 2:15-cv-00607-NVW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Neil V. Wake, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 5, 2019**
Pasadena, California
Before: FERNANDEZ and OWENS, Circuit Judges, and DONATO,*** District
Judge.
Defendant Steven Youtsey appeals from the district court’s order granting
summary judgment to plaintiff Preston Collection Inc. (“Preston”) on a loan
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
*** The Honorable James Donato, United States District Judge for the
Northern District of California, sitting by designation.
FILED
MAR 19 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
obligation. He also appeals the district court’s determination of the rate of
prejudgment interest. Because the parties are familiar with the facts, they will not
be recounted here. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.
We review a grant of summary judgment de novo. Southland Sod Farms v.
Stover Seed Co., 108 F.3d 1134, 1138 (9th Cir. 1997). The district court did not
err in concluding that Youtsey had failed to raise any genuine dispute of material
fact about his indebtedness to plaintiff, or the timeliness of plaintiff’s action on the
obligation under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-508. See Freeman v. Wilson, 485 P.2d 1161,
1165-66 (Ariz. 1971); John W. Masury & Son v. Bisbee Lumber Co., 68 P.2d 679,
689-92 (Ariz. 1937). The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to
credit Youtsey’s conclusory allegations tendered in opposition to summary
judgment. See Wong v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 410 F.3d 1052, 1060 (9th Cir.
2005) (“Rulings regarding evidence made in the context of summary judgment are
reviewed for an abuse of discretion.”).
Because summary judgment was properly granted, the district court
permissibly awarded attorney’s fees to plaintiff. Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-341.01(A).
We review de novo the district court’s interpretation of Arizona law with respect to
the rate of prejudgment interest. Oak Harbor Freight Lines, Inc. v. Sears Roebuck
& Co., 513 F.3d 949, 954 (9th Cir. 2008). The district court properly determined
that the appropriate rate was 10% under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1201(A) and that the

-- 2 of 3 --

3
parties had not agreed to a lower interest rate in lieu of the statutory rate.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --