Murdoch v. Rosenberg & Associates, LLC
875 F. Supp. 2d 6
D.D.C.2012Background
- Murdoch, a Maryland resident, sues Rosenberg & Associates and Diane Rosenberg for allegedly sending form debt-collection notices violating FDCPA and Maryland/DC consumer-protection acts.
- Notice letters pertain to Murdoch’s Maryland mortgage debt; she asserts class actions on behalf of similarly situated Maryland/DC/VA consumers.
- Firm is Maryland-based; named partner resides in Maryland; in DC it is a foreign entity with a registered DC agent.
- Defendants move to dismiss for improper venue; Murdoch contends DC is proper due to defendants’ DC activities and potential class members.
- Court analyzes venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1391; concludes DC is not proper for Murdoch’s claims but District of Maryland is a proper venue; transfer to MD is in the interest of justice.
- Murdoch’s class allegations are not controlling for the venue analysis of her individual claim; putative class venue depends on named representative’s allegations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether venue is proper in DC under § 1391(b)(2). | Murdoch argues a substantial part of events occurred in DC. | All relevant events occurred in Maryland. | No; DC venue not proper under § 1391(b)(2). |
| Whether class-action considerations affect venue for the named plaintiff. | DC events affecting class members support venue in DC. | Only events relating to the named plaintiff matter for venue. | Not controlling; venue determined by named plaintiff’s claims; DC not proper. |
| Whether the case should be transferred to the District of Maryland. | (Not explicitly stated as a distinct argument in text) | Transfer not necessary if not proper venue. | Transfer to Maryland ordered in the interest of justice under § 1406(a). |
Key Cases Cited
- Great Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. Miski, 496 F. Supp. 2d 137 (D. Md. 2007) (ascertains venue by events having operative significance with common-sense appraisal)
- Day v. Cornèr Bank (Overseas) Ltd., 789 F. Supp. 2d 150 (D.D.C. 2011) (personal-jurisdiction and venue are distinct concepts)
- Cameron v. Thornburgh, 983 F.2d 253 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (venue may hinge on where the events occurred and related contacts)
- Jones v. United States, 820 F. Supp. 2d 58 (D.D.C. 2011) (transfer favored when improper venue impedes adjudication on the merits)
- Turnley v. Banc of Am. Inv. Srvcs., Inc., 576 F. Supp. 2d 204 (D. Mass. 2008) (illustrates putative-class venue considerations)