Mark Suesz v. Med-1 Solutions, LLC
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 12562
| 7th Cir. | 2014Background
- FDCPA §1692i governs proper venue by requiring suit where consumer signed the contract or resides, with ‘or similar legal entity’ broadening venue concepts.
- Marion County, Indiana, has nine township small-claims courts, each with its own judge and administration, handling many civil disputes under $6,000.
- Med-1 sued Mark Suesz in Pike Township Small Claims Court; Suesz resides in Hancock County and did not sign the contract there.
- Newsom v. Friedman held Cook County’s municipal districts were not separate judicial districts for §1692i, leading to a county-wide venue approach.
- District court dismissed, following Newsom; the en banc court overruled Newsom, endorsing a township-venue focus as the governing unit.
- Indiana venue rules and the township structure create potential for abusive forum-shopping, which the FDCPA seeks to deter by limiting venue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What unit qualifies as the judicial district under §1692i? | Suesz: Marion County townships are separate judicial districts. | Med-1: Newsom/County-wide approach should apply. | Township is the smallest venue-relevant unit; Marion County townships are separate judicial districts. |
| Should Newsom be overruled by the en banc court? | Newsom misapplies state-administration details; overruling needed to deter forum-shopping. | Newsom reflects proper interpretation and avoids invalid federalization of state structures. | Newsom overruled; venue-based, state-structure-informed approach adopted. |
| What methodology should govern §1692i interpretation in unusual state court structures? | Follow Black’s dictionary definition of ‘judicial district’ as a general guide. | Rely on state-venue rules and practical administration to determine the proper district. | Adopt the venue-based approach focusing on smallest geographic unit relevant for venue. |
| Does the decision address retroactivity for the party before the court? | Reversal and remand; the new interpretation applies to the case on remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Newsom v. Friedman, 76 F.3d 813 (7th Cir. 1996) (held Cook County municipal districts not separate judicial districts for §1692i)
- Hess v. Cohen & Slamowitz LLP, 637 F.3d 117 (2d Cir. 2011) (adopted venue-based interpretation aligning judicial district with state venue rules)