Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-15-15417/USCOURTS-ca11-15-15417-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 15-15417

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 5:15-cv-00206-CAR

ELAINE MARSHALL,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

FREDERICK J. HANNA AND ASSOCIATES, P.C.,

 Defendant-Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Georgia

_______________________

(December 16, 2016)

Before WILLIAM PRYOR and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges, and 

MARTINEZ,* District Judge.

PER CURIAM:

 * Honorable Jose E. Martinez, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Florida, 

sitting by designation.

USCA11 Case: 15-15417 Date Filed: 12/16/2016 Page: 1 of 2
2

The only issue in this appeal is whether the venue provision of the Fair Debt 

Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692i(a)(2), applies to garnishment 

proceedings under Georgia law. That issue is controlled by recent binding 

precedent. See Ray v. McCullough Payne & Haan, LLC, No. 16-11518 (11th Cir. 

Sept. 29, 2016). The venue provision of the Act requires “[a]ny debt collector who 

brings any legal action on a debt against any consumer” to “bring such action only 

in the judicial district . . . in which such consumer signed the contract sued upon; 

or in which such consumer resides at the commencement of the action.” 15 U.S.C. 

§ 1629i(a)(2). We held in Ray that the provision does not apply to garnishment 

proceedings brought under Georgia law because those proceedings are 

“fundamentally an action against the garnishee, not the consumer.” Ray, slip op. 

at 8. Frederick J. Hanna and Associates obtained a judgment against Elaine 

Marshall and then filed a garnishment action in Georgia against her employer. 

Because this garnishment proceeding was against the garnishee, Marshall’s 

employer, and not the consumer, Marshall, the venue provision of the Act does not 

apply. 

We AFFIRM the judgment of the district court. 

USCA11 Case: 15-15417 Date Filed: 12/16/2016 Page: 2 of 2