Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_08-cv-00375/USCOURTS-almd-2_08-cv-00375-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

CHARLES MEREDITH, JR., )

)

Plaintiff, ) 

)

v. ) CASE NO. 2:08-cv-375-MEF

) (WO - Do not publish) 

UNIFUND CCR PARTNERS, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This cause is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative,

Motion for Change of Venue (Doc. # 9), which Plaintiff has opposed. Alleging violations

of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), Plaintiff filed his lawsuit in the United

States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama. Plaintiff’s complaint specifically

alleges that venue is appropriate in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). See

Compl. at ¶ 3. Two of the Defendants have claimed that venue is improper in this district

and urged the Court to either dismiss the case or to transfer it to the United States District

Court for the Northern District of Alabama, a district where they contend venue is

appropriate. Because the Court finds that venue is appropriate in this district, the motion is

due to be DENIED.

BACKGROUND

According to the allegations of the Complaint (Doc. # 1), Defendants are all engaged

in the business of collecting debts. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants made repeated efforts

Case 2:08-cv-00375-MEF-WC Document 24 Filed 10/29/08 Page 1 of 5
Birmingham, Alabama is a city within the Northern District of Alabama. 1

2

to collect a debt from him that he does not owe and that he had formally disputed. Plaintiff

resides in Montgomery, Alabama, a city within the Middle District of Alabama. Two of the

Defendants are foreign corporations engaged in the business of buying, selling, and

collecting unpaid debts: Centurion Capital Corporation (“Centurion”) and Unifund CCR

Partners (“Unifund”). The remaining two Defendants are a lawyer, Sandra Simpson

(“Simpson”), and her employer, the law firm, Zarzaur & Schwartz, P.C. (“the Z&S firm”),

located in Birmingham, Alabama. 

1

Plaintiff alleges that he received letters from Centurion and the Z&S firm, in 2007,

seeking to collect a debt which he was alleged to owe. Plaintiff also claims he received a

telephone call regarding this alleged debt from either Centurion or the Z&S firm. Plaintiff

contends that he disputed the debt. On May 21, 2007, Simpson filed a lawsuit against

Plaintiff on behalf of Centurion. This lawsuit was filed in the Montgomery County Small

Claims Court, and it sought to collect the debt which Plaintiff was alleged to owe. Along

with the Complaint, Simpson filed an affidavit in which she held herself out as a

representative of Centurion and represented that Plaintiff was responsible for the debt they

were attempting to collect. Plaintiff alleges that the affidavit contained inaccurate and

misleading information about him. Plaintiff denied liability and sought discovery. On

August 20, 2007, Simpson, acting on behalf of Centurion, moved to dismiss the lawsuit

against Plaintiff in the Montgomery County Small Claims Court without prejudice. Plaintiff

agreed to the dismissal of the action, but only if it would be with prejudice. The case was

Case 2:08-cv-00375-MEF-WC Document 24 Filed 10/29/08 Page 2 of 5
3

called for trial. Plaintiff and Simpson were present in the Small Claims Court in

Montgomery County. The judge asked what evidence existed proving that Plaintiff owed the

debt, and Simpson did not offer any. The judge dismissed the suit with prejudice on

September 18, 2007. 

On August 30, 2007, Unifund sent Plaintiff a dunning letter advising him that Unifund

intended to collect the same debt that Centurion had been pursuing. On October 31, 2007,

the Z&S firm sent Plaintiff a letter advising him that it was now attempting to collect this

debt on behalf of Unifund. No individual signed this letter. On December 3, 2007, Simpson,

this time acting on behalf of Unifund, filed a second lawsuit against Plaintiff in the

Montgomery County Small Claims Court, for the purpose of collecting the same debt which

had been the subject of the prior action by Simpson on behalf of Centurion. The Z&S firm

then sent a letter to Plaintiff threatening to file the lawsuit which had already been filed in

Montgomery. Against Plaintiff denied liability and asserted various defenses including res

judicata. On December 18, 2007, Simpson sent Plaintiff a letter about this matter seeking

to collect the debt and inviting him to discuss the matter so that it could be resolved without

going to court. In this letter, Simpson indicated she was acting on behalf of Unifund.

Plaintiff alleges that this letter contained materially false statements concerning the debt

allegedly owed. Plaintiff retained a lawyer who confronted Simpson regarding the res

judicata bar to the collection action. Thereafter, Simpson filed a motion asking the Small

Claims Court of Montgomery County to dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice, which motion

was granted. Plaintiff alleges harm arising out of these actions by the Defendants. 

Case 2:08-cv-00375-MEF-WC Document 24 Filed 10/29/08 Page 3 of 5
4

DISCUSSION

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), “[t]he district court of a district in which is filed a case

laying venue in the wrong division or district shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice,

transfer such case to any district or division in which it could have been brought.” Where,

as here, a civil action wherein subject matter jurisdiction is not founded on diversity of

citizenship, venue is proper in: a judicial district where any defendant resides if all

defendants reside in the same state; a judicial district “in which a substantial part of the

events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred” or a substantial part of the property

subject of the action is situated; or a judicial district in which any defendant may be found,

if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

In this case, Simpson and the Z&S firm argue that the alleged violation of the FDCPA

occurred in the Northern District of Alabama because they mailed debt demand letters,

initiated telephone calls, and drafted and mailed the lawsuit from its offices in Birmingham,

which is in the Northern District. Defendant cites Jenkins Brick Co. v. Bremer, which

involved a suit by an employer against a former employee for breach of a noncompete clause

of an employment contract. 321 F.3d 1366 (11th Cir. 2003). In Bremer, the plaintiff

presented the employment contract to the defendant in Georgia, the defendant signed the

contract in Georgia, the defendant’s worked in Georgia, and defendant’s work for the

competitor that gave rise to the lawsuit occurred in Georgia. The Court concluded that the

defendant’s actions that gave rise to the suit “occurred only in Georgia.” 

In this case, many of the Defendants’ actions that gave rise to Plaintiff’s suit occurred

Case 2:08-cv-00375-MEF-WC Document 24 Filed 10/29/08 Page 4 of 5
5

in the Middle District. The Defendants twice sued the Plaintiff in Montgomery County and

participated in court hearings there. Defendants cite no federal case to support their position

that venue is proper in the Northern District because the mail that gave rise to the

Montgomery County lawsuits originated from the Z&S firm’s offices in the Northern

District. More persuasive than Defendants’ arguments are those made by Plaintiff and the

cases which Plaintiff cites. Including the federal cases that support the proposition that, in

a case that arises from debt collection mail, venue is proper in the district where the debtor

resides because the injury did not occur until the mail was received. See, e.g., Bates v. C&S

Adjusters, Inc., 980 F.2d 865, 868 (2d Cir. 1992); Bailey v. Clegg, Brush & Assocs., Inc., No.

1:90-cv-2702-CAM, 1991 WL 143461 at *2 (N.D. Ga. June 14, 1991); Murphy v. Allen

County Claims & Adjustments, 550 F. Supp. 128, 130-31 (S.D. Ohio 1982); Gachette v.

Tri-City Adjustment Bureau, 519 F. Supp. 311, 313-14 (N.D. Ga. 1981). The rationale

behind these decisions applies to this case. Plaintiff did not suffer any injury until the mail

that initiated the lawsuit was received in Montgomery County. Therefore, a “substantial part

of the events” that gave rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in the Middle District, and thus

venue is proper here. 

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative,

Motion for Change of Venue (Doc. # 9) is DENIED.

Done this the 29 day of October, 2008. th

 /s/ Mark E. Fuller 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:08-cv-00375-MEF-WC Document 24 Filed 10/29/08 Page 5 of 5