Dany Geraldo; Wendoly Guzman v. RICHLAND HOLDINGS, INC., DBA Acctcorp of Southern Nevada

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DANY GERALDO; WENDOLY
GUZMAN,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
RICHLAND HOLDINGS, INC., DBA
Acctcorp of Southern Nevada; RC
WILLEY, AKA RC Willey Financial
Services,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-16636
D.C. No. 2:17-cv-00015-JCM-PAL
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
James C. Mahan, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 13, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, M. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Dany Geraldo and Wendoly Guzman appeal from the district court’s
judgment dismissing their action alleging Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
* 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).
FILED
MAR 29 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 17-16636
(“FDCPA”) and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
We review de novo. Holcombe v. Hosmer, 477 F.3d 1094, 1097 (9th Cir. 2007).
We may affirm on any basis supported by the record, Johnson v. Riverside
Healthcare Sys., LP, 534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir. 2008), and we affirm.
Dismissal of plaintiffs’ action was proper under the doctrine of judicial
estoppel because plaintiffs omitted their FDCPA and state law claims from their
bankruptcy schedules and failed to allege sufficient facts to show that such
omission was due to inadvertence or mistake. See Ah Quin v. Cty. of Kauai Dep’t
of Transp., 733 F.3d 267, 271-73 (9th Cir. 2013) (explaining application of judicial
estoppel in the bankruptcy context and effect of an inadvertent or mistaken
omission from a bankruptcy filing; the court applies a “presumption of deliberate
manipulation” when a plaintiff-debtor has not reopened bankruptcy proceedings);
see also Dzakula v. McHugh, 746 F.3d 399, 401-02 (9th Cir. 2014) (inadvertence
or mistake not established where plaintiff amended her bankruptcy schedules after
the filing of a motion to dismiss and did not file a declaration explaining her initial
omission).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying leave to file an
amended complaint because amendment would be futile. See Cervantes v.

-- 2 of 3 --

3 17-16636
Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth
standard of review and explaining that dismissal without leave to amend is proper
when amendment would be futile).
Plaintiffs’ motion to file a late reply brief (Docket Entry No. 36) is granted.
The Clerk shall file the reply brief at Docket Entry No. 35.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --