Opinion ID: 662461
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Separate Judicial Districts

Text: 36 Second, the defendants argue that Maricopa County and Pima County are not separate judicial districts; therefore, filing the application in the former rather than in the latter establishes no venue violation. Section 1692i specifies judicial district or similar legal entity. We have no difficulty in concluding that the two counties are different venues under the FDCPA where the state has provided a formal transfer mechanism (as utilized in Citicorp's two 1986 actions against the Foxes) between courts in the two counties. The fact that, as the defendants argue, the state of Arizona constitutes a single federal judicial district and has a unitary state superior court has no effect on our conclusion. See Dutton v. Wolhar, 809 F.Supp. 1130, 1139 (D.Del.1992) (rejecting similar contention).