Opinion ID: 662461
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Enforcement-Action Exemption from Venue Provision

Text: 33 First, Citicorp contends that the application for a writ of garnishment, as an action in enforcement of a previously-obtained judgment, does not fall within the venue provision. By its terms, section 1692i reaches any legal action on a debt. The FDCPA defines debt as any obligation or alleged obligation of a consumer to pay money arising out of a transaction ... primarily for personal, family, or household purposes. 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1692a(5). Thus, the June 1989 stipulated judgment was entered in a legal action based upon a debt as defined in the FDCPA. Furthermore, the definition of debt specifically states that it applies whether or not such obligation has been reduced to judgment. Id. Nonetheless, Citicorp contends that the application for a writ of garnishment is not a legal action on a debt for purposes of section 1692i. 34 The plain meaning of the term legal action encompasses all judicial proceedings, including those in enforcement of a previously-adjudicated right. Cf. S & M Investment Co. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Authority, 911 F.2d 324, 326-27 (9th Cir.1990) (construing term legal action as used in interstate compact), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1087, 111 S.Ct. 963, 112 L.Ed.2d 1050 (1991). Because debt includes obligations reduced to judgment, any judicial proceeding relating to such a judgment constitutes a legal action on a debt. 35 Moreover, the purpose of the venue provision supports our rejection of an enforcement-action exception. In enacting the provision, Congress was concerned about consumers having to defend against suits in distant or inconvenient courts. S.Rep. No. 382, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 5 (1977), reprinted in 1977 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1695, 1699. Consumers face similar burdens in defending against enforcement actions. Here, for example, had the writ not been quashed, the Foxes would have had to move for its quashing or defend against the amount of garnishment in a distant court. We find no indication that Congress intended to exclude enforcement actions, entailing the same concerns as initial adjudications, from the venue provision. Accordingly, we conclude that such actions are subject to section 1692i. 8