## Facts

- Phillip E. Bates incurred a consumer debt while living in the Western District of Pennsylvania.
- The creditor, based in Pennsylvania, referred the account to C & S Adjusters, Inc., a Pennsylvania debt-collection agency that conducted no regular business in New York.
- After Bates moved to the Western District of New York, C & S mailed a collection notice to his former Pennsylvania address.
- The Postal Service forwarded the notice to Bates’s New York address; C & S did not take steps to prevent forwarding.
- Bates sued in the Western District of New York under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), seeking statutory damages, costs, and attorney’s fees.
- C & S answered, asserted affirmative defenses, counterclaimed for costs alleging bad faith and harassment, and moved to dismiss for improper venue.

## Issues

1. Whether venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) is proper in the district where a debt-collection letter is forwarded and received when the collector mailed it to the debtor’s former address in another state.
2. Whether “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim” can include the location of receipt in an FDCPA action, even absent regular business activity by the defendant in that district.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit reversed the dismissal for improper venue and remanded.
- Venue was proper in the Western District of New York under § 1391(b)(2) because forwarding and receipt of the collection notice there were a substantial part of the events giving rise to the FDCPA claim.
- The court treated the 1990 amendment to § 1391(b) as permitting venue in more than one district when substantial events occurred in multiple places.
- The court reasoned that in FDCPA cases the harm from an improper collection communication occurs upon receipt, making the place of receipt an important event.
- The court noted C & S could have reduced the likelihood of forwarding through postal markings, supporting the fairness of litigating in New York.

## Legal Principles

- Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), venue lies in any judicial district where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, and there need not be a single exclusive district.
- For FDCPA claims based on a collection notice, receipt of the challenged communication is a substantial event because the alleged injury arises when the notice is received.
- Venue analysis under § 1391(b)(2) focuses on where relevant events occurred, not on whether the defendant deliberately directed activity to the forum or conducted regular business there.
- A debt collector may be subject to venue where a collection letter is forwarded and received when the collector did not prevent forwarding and the letter’s arrival is part of the collection process.

## Conclusion

The court held that the Western District of New York was a proper venue for an FDCPA suit because the forwarded collection letter’s receipt in that district constituted a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim, and it reversed and remanded for further proceedings.


Bates v. C & S Adjusters, Inc., 980 F.2d 865 (2d Cir. 1992)