Hess v. Cohen & Slamowitz, LLP
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 3512
| 2d Cir. | 2011Background
- Hess resides in the Town of Clay, Onondaga County, NY; he never resided in Syracuse.
- Hess was sued in Syracuse City Court by Cohen & Slamowitz on behalf of Midland Funding LLC.
- The Syracuse City Court dismissed the action under NY UCCA § 213 for lack of residency/contiguity.
- Hess filed a federal FDCPA claim alleging the venue was improper because the action was brought outside his residence’s judicial district.
- The district court dismissed Hess’s claim, holding that “judicial district” should be read as a county under NY/state practice, and declined to adopt Hess’s interpretation.
- The Second Circuit vacated and remanded, holding that the FDCPA’s “judicial district” for NY city court actions is bounded by the city and contiguous towns within the same county, making Hess’s claim viable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meaning of judicial district under FDCPA for NY city courts | Hess: district means city + contiguous towns in same county | C&S: district means broader county-wide area | Hess stated a viable FDCPA venue claim |
| Boundary of judicial district when NY city court is used | Hess’s residence in Clay lies outside Syracuse city’s contiguous towns | C&S: district should be the entire county | District court erred; boundary limited to city + contiguous towns in same county |
| Relation of UCCA § 213 to FDCPA venue analysis | UCCA § 213 ensures nexus; supports Hess’s view of proper district | § 213 is jurisdictional and not important for venue analysis | § 213 can delimit the FDCPA venue boundary and is relevant |
| Effect of § 213(d) dismissal on FDCPA liability | Refiling does not cure venue violation; supports consumer protection | Refiling possible under state law; not dispositive for FDCPA | Irrelevant to liability; core concern is improper venue |
| Evidentiary weight of other district-court opinions | Prior district opinions are non-binding | Some cases support broader county reading | Not persuasive; NY state structure dictates district boundaries |
Key Cases Cited
- Newsom v. Friedman, 76 F.3d 813 (7th Cir. 1996) (municipal subdivisions not FDCPA districts; circuit-based boundaries matter)
- Fox v. Citicorp Credit Servs., Inc., 15 F.3d 1507 (9th Cir. 1994) (state court districts define FDCPA judicial districts)
- Dutton v. Wolhar, 809 F. Supp. 1130 (D. Del. 1992) (state subdivisions govern FDCPA venue in state actions)
- Wiener v. Bloomfield, 901 F. Supp. 771 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) (personalizes FDCPA venue to local court’s territorial limits)
- Harrington v. CACV of Colo., LLC, 508 F. Supp. 2d 128 (D. Mass. 2007) (district court interpretation of FDCPA venue considerations)