Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01144/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01144-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 1 - 10cv1144

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT A. BUTLER,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 10-CV-1144-H (NLS)

ORDER DENYING MOTION

TO DISMISS FOR IMPROPER

VENUE

vs.

GOLDSMITH & HULL, APC;

HARVEST CREDIT MANAGEMENT

VII, LLC,

Defendants.

On May 27, 2010, Plaintiff Robert A. Butler (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against

Defendants Goldsmith & Hull, APC, and Harvest Credit Management VII, LLC

(“Defendants”) alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15

U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., and the California Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

(“Rosenthal Act”), Civil Code §§ 1788-1788.33. (Doc. No. 1.) On July 12, 2010, Defendants

filed a motion to dismiss for improper venue pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

12(b)(3). (Doc. No. 8.) On July 29, 2010, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. (Doc.

No. 9.) On July 30, 2010, Plaintiff filed an opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss.

(Doc. No. 11.) Defendants did not file a reply in support of their motion to dismiss. The Court

determines this matter is appropriate for resolution without oral argument and submits the

motion on the parties’ papers pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(d)(1). For the reasons stated below,

the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion to dismiss.

Case 3:10-cv-01144-AJB-NLS Document 12 Filed 08/11/10 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

Defendants mention lack of personal jurisdiction in their notice of motion. (Doc. No.

8 at 2.) However, Defendants do not argue lack of personal jurisdiction anywhere in the

memorandum of points and authorities in support of their motion. (Doc. No. 8-1.)

- 2 - 10cv1144

DISCUSSION

Venue in federal question cases is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Section 1391(b)

states that venue is proper: (1) in a district where any defendant resides if all defendants reside

in the same state; (2) a district where a “substantial part of the events or omissions” on which

the claim is based occurred; or (3) if there is no district where the action may otherwise be

brought, the district “in which any defendant may be found.” Id.

Plaintiff’s complaint states that “[v]enue is proper in this District in that the acts and

transactions occurred here, Plaintiff resides here, and Defendants transact business here.”

(Doc. No. 1. at 2.) Defendants argue that venue in the Southern District of California is

improper because the only relation to the Southern District of California is that Plaintiff

happens to live in that district. (Doc. No. 8-1 at 5.) Plaintiff argues that venue in the Southern

District of California is proper because Defendants directed an offending letter to Plaintiff’s

home in this district. (Doc. No. 11 at 5.)

In a similar challenge to venue in a case claiming improper debt collection, the Second

Circuit held that receipt of a collection notice is a substantial part of the events giving rise to

a claim under the FDCPA. See Bates v. C & S Adjusters, Inc., 980 F.2d 865, 868 (2nd

Cir.1992). The Court agrees that venue is proper in the Southern District of California.

To the extent that Defendants argue that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over

Defendants, the Court denies Defendants’ motion to dismiss on that basis.1

 Plaintiff claims

that Defendants obtained a judgment against Plaintiff in San Diego Superior Court entitling

Defendants to interest on a debt owed to Harvest Credit Management. (Doc. No. 11 at 4; Doc.

No. 11-1 at 2.) Further, Plaintiff’s lawsuit arises from a letter regarding this judgment that

Defendants sent to Plaintiff’s home in San Diego. (Id.) Defendants present no contradictory

facts and do not argue that this Court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction is unreasonable. The

Court concludes that Defendants purposely availed themselves of this forum and that the

Case 3:10-cv-01144-AJB-NLS Document 12 Filed 08/11/10 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 - 10cv1144

exercise of personal jurisdiction is proper. See Pebble Beach Co. v. Caddy, 453 F.3d 1151,

1154-1155 (9th Cir. 2006); Ochoa v. J.B. Martin & Sons Frams, Inc., 287 F.3d 1182, 1188-89

(9th Cir. 2002). 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons above, the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion to dismiss for improper

venue.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 11, 2010

________________________________

MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

COPIES TO:

All parties of record 

Case 3:10-cv-01144-AJB-NLS Document 12 Filed 08/11/10 Page 3 of 3