In Etro v. Blitt & Gaines, plaintiff alleged that defendant violated the FDCPA by instituting a garnishment action against plaintiff's employer in a judicial district where plaintiff did not live. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that it satisfied the FDCPA's venue requirements. The court granted the motion, finding that the garnishment action was targeted to the employer and not the consumer, so that it was not required to be filed where plaintiff resided. Underlying the reasoning of the court was the practical reality that the action needed to be filed where the employer was located because no other court would have had jurisdiction over the employer.
↧