Turnbull v. O'Reilly Rancilio PC, 2:16-cv-11971

Plaintiff Turnbull sued O’Reilly Rancilio P.C. under the FDCPA and Michigan law arising from efforts to collect a student loan and a subsequent garnishment proceeding.
Original complaint alleged improper venue for prior suit and improper assertion of wage‑garnishment rights.
Court previously dismissed Turnbull’s initial FDCPA claims as subject to the bona fide error defense, but allowed Turner to move for leave to amend to plead a § 1692i venue claim based on garnishment.
Turnbull moved for leave to amend to add claims that the garnishment was filed in a venue where he did not reside and where he did not sign the contract.
Defendant opposed, arguing the proposed amendment would be futile because Michigan garnishment proceedings are not actions “against” a consumer under § 1692i.
Magistrate Judge Majzoub denied leave to amend as futile and dismissed the state-law claims for lack of supplemental jurisdiction, terminating the case.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a garnishment proceeding is a "legal action on a debt against any consumer" under 15 U.S.C. § 1692i	Garnishment is a judicial proceeding enforcing a debt and therefore falls within § 1692i; requiring venue where debtor resides prevents distant enforcement	Michigan garnishment targets the garnishee (third party) and is governed by garnishee venue rules, so it is not an action "against" the consumer for § 1692i purposes	Garnishment under Michigan law is not an action "against" the consumer for § 1692i; amendment would be futile
Whether plaintiff’s proposed amendment could survive a Rule 12(b)(6) challenge	Amendment would state a viable FDCPA § 1692i claim based on improper venue	Amendment fails as a matter of law because Michigan garnishment scheme focuses on the garnishee, not the debtor	Amendment is futile and leave to amend denied
Whether to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims if no federal claim remains	N/A (argued only if federal claim added)	N/A	Court declines supplemental jurisdiction and dismisses state-law claims after denying amendment

Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962) (factors for granting leave to amend)
Rose v. Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co., 203 F.3d 417 (6th Cir. 2000) (futility standard for proposed amendment)
Roskam Baking Co., Inc. v. Lanham Machinery Co., Inc., 288 F.3d 895 (6th Cir. 2002) (consideration of substance of proposed amendment)
Smith v. Solomon & Solomon, P.C., 714 F.3d 73 (1st Cir. 2013) (Massachusetts trustee process is an action against the trustee, not the debtor, for § 1692i)
Jackson v. Blitt & Gaines, P.C., 833 F.3d 860 (7th Cir. 2016) (Illinois garnishment focuses on third-party employer, not the debtor, for FDCPA venue provision)
Fox v. Citicorp Credit Servs., Inc., 15 F.3d 1507 (9th Cir. 1994) ("legal action" encompasses judicial proceedings including garnishment; concern about distant courts)