Bates v. C & S Adjusters, Inc.
908 F.2d 865 (2d Cir. 1992)
Bates received a collection
notice from C&S, based on a debt he incurred while living in
Pennsylvania. Instead of paying, he sued.
Bates alleged a violation of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).
Bates brought his case in a
New York Federal Court. C&S filed a motion to dismiss for improper
C&S was located in the
Western District of Pennsylvania.
Bates presently lived in the
Western District of New York.
The New York Trial Court
dismissed the claim for improper venue.
Bates argued that the case
could be brought under 28 USC § 1391(b)(2), which allows action to be brought in a judicial district in
which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the
The New York Appellate Court
reversed the Trial Court's ruling, and remanded the case back to the Trial
The Appellate Court felt
that the venue was proper under 28 USC § 1391(b)(2).
28 USC § 1391(b)(2) had been amended in 1990. Prior to that, it
only allowed for a venue in the judicial district where the claim arose.
Prior to 1966, the only
venue available was the one in which the defendant had a domicile.
The Court also noted that
even prior to the 1990 amendment to 28 USC § 1391, several Courts had held that, under the FDCPA, a plaintiff could bring suit in their home
district if a collection agency had mailed notice to their address in
that district, of called them on the phone there.