Bates v. C&S Adjusters, Inc. (1992)

a.       Facts- Π lived in Penn and Δ is a debt collection agency. Π moved to NY. When trying to collect debt from Π, Δ sent a collection letter to Π’s old, Penn address. The post office then forwarded the collection letter to Π’s new address. Π then filed a complaint against Δ in NY under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). However, the Ct dismissed Π’s complaint because Δ claimed improper venue.

b.      Procedural History- Π files complaint, Δ claims improper venue, Trial Ct dismisses Π’s complaint, Ct of appeals reverses and remands.

c.       Issue- Whether venue in NY was proper because the Π received the collection letter while he was there, even though the Δ did NOT intentionally send it there.

d.      Holding- Yes, venue was proper in NY because mailing the collection letter was a “substantial part of events” under the FDCPA. Further, Δ could have chosen to mark the collection letter “do not forward”, preventing the forwarding into NY.

                                                              i.      Also, Δ did not otherwise object to Jx

e.       Rule- Venue is proper wherever a “substantial part of the events” that gave way to the claim occur, regardless of whether the Δ actually entered that venue.

f.       Rationale-

g.      Notes-

                                                              i.      Why was PJx proper in NY?

1.      Under the FDCPA, the injury occurs at the time of receipt (receiving the collection papers)

2.      Where the injury occurs, the cause of action arises